1978/01/17 78-39
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone
CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
STAFF ASSISTANT FOR CONVENTION CENTER: Jim Dooley
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend George Brown of the Melodyland Hotline Center gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman John Seymour led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
MOURNING PERIOD FOR SENATOR HUBERT H. HUMPHREY: The Mayor explained that the City's
flags were at half-mast during the period of National Mourning called for by President
Carter in memory of the late Senator Hubert Humphrey and would remain so until Thurs-
day, January 19, 1978.
PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Thom and approved by
the City Council:
"National Drug Abuse Week" - January 15 - 21, 1978
The proclamation was accepted by Anna Pond and Rosa Meek.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, minutes of
the City Council regular meetings held December 20 and 27, 1977, were approved
subject to corrections. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth 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.
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
MOTION
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $804,632.91, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
78-40
City Hall, Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
174.123: AUDITS OF EDA PROJECTS BY PRICE WATERHOUSE & COMPANY: (Project Nos.
07-51-01051, 07-51-01052, 07-51-01053, 07-51-01059 and 07-51-08031) Councilman
Kott questioned staff as to whether or not they went out to bid for performance
of the proposed EDA audits, as he considered the charges of $56 an hour maximum,
or $448 a day, to perform the work to be excessive.
Finance Director George Ferrone stated that he did go out to bid, and of the two
most qualified national accounting firms capable of doing EDA audits, Price Water-
house bid the lowest. As suggested by Councilman Kott, bids could be solicited
from other firms who did not specialize in such audits, but he assumed it would
take more hours for them to do the work, with attendant costs.
The Mayor stated that many times that was the problem, the least expensive proposal
did not always assure the best job. When federal programs were audited, it was
necessary to have a good audit that would be acceptable to the Federal government.
A brief discussion followed between Mr. Ferrone and Councilman Kott relative to
out-of-pocket costs as outlined in the agreements, at the conclusion of which
Councilman Kott maintained his position of opposition to the agreements.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, five letter agreements
with Price Waterhouse & Company for audits of EDA Project Nos. 07-51-01051, 07-51-
01052, 07-51-01053, 07-51-01059 and 07-51-08031, were approved as well as authoriza-
tion of the Finance Director to execute said agreements and transferring $1,900
from the Council Contingency Fund for two of the five audits. Councilman Kott
voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
153: ADJUSTMENT OF RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR SOME PSE OUTSTATIONED AND PART-TIME
JOB CLASSES: At the request of Councilman Kott, City Manager Talley clarified some
questions relative to the proposed rates of compensation for the subject classes
outlined in memorandum dated January 10, 1978, from Personnel Director Garry McRae.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 78R-33
and 78R-34 for adoption as recommended by the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-33: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-677 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR OUTSTATIONED PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM CLASSES AND ADJUSTING
RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR SELECTED CLASSIFICATIONS.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-34: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-156 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME CLASSES TO ADJUST RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR SELECTED CLASSES.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-33 and 78R-34 duly passed and adopted.
78-41
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
153: AMENDMENT OF RULE 6~ PREMIUM PAY, REDUCING FIRE EMPLOYEE UPGRADE MINIMUM:
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-35 for adoption, as recommended in memo-
randum dated January il, 1978, from the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-35: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-801 PERSONNEL RULE 6, PREMIUM PAY. (effective
January 6, 1978)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-35 duly passed and adopted.
123: TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF GUSTAVO A. DURAN~ NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION COORDINATOR~
TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS: (one year period) Councilman Kott offered
Resolution No. 78R-36 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated January 11,
1978, from the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-36: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF A CITY EMPLOYEE AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-36 duly passed and adopted.
150: EQUESTRIAN AND HIKING TRAILS INFORMATIONAL REPORT: On motion by Councilman
Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, the equestrian and hiking trails informational
report dated January 10, 1978, submitted jointly by the Planning Department,
Engineering Division and Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department, was received
and filed. MOTION CARRIED.
123: IMPROVEMENT OF EUCLID STREET~ NORTH OF ROMNEYA DRIVE~ AHFP NO. 836: (Beneficial
Development Corporation) Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-37 for adop-
tion, as recommended in memorandum dated January 10, 1978, from the City Engineer.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-37: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND BENEFICIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF CERTAIN
STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
78-42
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-37 duly passed and adopted.
144: A.H.F.P. NO. 836 - RIGHT-OF-WAY CERTIFICATION - EUCLID STREET FROM RIVERSIDE
FREEWAY TO LA PALMA AVENUE: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Council-
woman Kaywood, Right-of-Way Certification of Euclid Street from the Riverside Freeway
to La Palma Avenue in connection with A.H.F.P. No. 836, was authorized. MOTION
CARRIED.
123: AGREEMENT WITH V.T.N. CONSOLIDATED, INC., TO PROVIDE 84 CRONAFLEX FILM
POSITIVES (reproducible aerial maps): (not to exceed $6,000 and to be completed
by June 1, 1978) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-38 for adoption,
as recommended in memorandum dated January 9, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-38: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH VTN CONSOLIDATED, INC.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE EIGHTY-FOUR CRONAFLEX FILM POSITIVES OF THE
CITY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-38 duly passed and adopted.
170: ACCESS POINT FROM PROPERTY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD
AND IMPERIAL HIGHWAY TO SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD: (Driveway Agreement with Las Tiendas
De Yorba) Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-39 for adoption, az recommended
in memorandum dated January 10, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-39: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A DRIVEWAY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AND LAS TIENDAS DE YORBA, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-39 duly passed and adopted.
78-43
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour explained his abstention was due to the fact that he had a
leasehold interest in 1500 square feet of office space in the shopping center
on the corner opposite the subject property.
142: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAX LIMITS: City Attorney William
Hopkins explained that on January 3, 1978, the Council approved a resolution
ordering the submission to the electors of the City a proposal for an amendment
to the City Charter for the April 11, 1978 election relating to tax limits. At
that time, it was contemplated that there would be two charter amendments; however,
he was now informed that there would only be one. Thus, he recommended that the
Council rescind the recent January 3, 1978 resolution and adopt the new resolution
submitted for Council approval which eliminated any reference to the other Charter
amendment. It would thus simplify wording of the ballot. Councilman Seymour
elaborated further on the matter for purposes of clarification. He thereupon
offered Resolution No. 78R-40 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-40: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIR~ OF ANAHEIM
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-7 ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE ELECTORS OF SAID
CITY OF A PROPOSAL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CHARTER AT THE APRIL 11, 1978
ELECTION RELATING TO TAX LIMITS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-40 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Seymour also offered Resolution No. 78R-41 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-41: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE ELECTORS OF SAID CITY OF A PROPOSAL FOR
AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF SAID CITY AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE
HELD IN SAID CITY ON APRIL 11, 1978. (deletes reference to any similar measure)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-41 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Thom stated he abstained because of his obvious bias in preference for the
COMBAT initiative.
78-44
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
142: PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATING TO ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTROL:
Councilman Kott read a prepared statement relative to his deep concern about the
method and manner in which special interest groups manipulated politics and politi-
cians and the eventual outcome of these machinations on governmental action. He,
therefore, offered for Council consideration an ordinance which he believed would
effectively control the problem of improper financial influence in Anaheim municipal
elections. The purpose was to restrict the high cost of election campaigning with
the inherent problem of improper influence exercised by campaign contributions over
elected officials. The intent in enactment of the ordinance would be to preserve
an orderly poli-tical forum in which individuals could express themselves effectively,
to place realistic and enforceable limits on amounts of money that may be contributed
to political campaigns in municipal elections and to prohibit contributions by
organizations in order to develop a broader base of political efficacy within the
community.
Councilman Kott continued that he would appreciate input from his fellow Council
Members relative to making the ordinance even more restrictive, and the effort must
be made if undesirable elements were to be precluded from controlling local politics.
He then cited what he considered recent examples: (1) Proposition A, the Electrical
Generation "Fiasco" financed by a handful of very large interest groups, and (2)
the current COMBAT tax initiative which the entertainment industry stated publicly
they would fight with large amounts of money including the financing of candidates
who would agree to oppose it which action would not be in the best interest of local
citizens, homeowners and taxpayers. He believed that the people should have a right
to decide such issues without the interference and influence of large corporate money,
which the proposed ordinance would limit.
He expected that those who might choose to criticize his efforts would state "the
pot is calling the kettle black" which was not true. He explained that he had been
unjustly and falsely accused of a campaign violation and there was not much he could
do to stop the false accusation other than what he had done, fight it and vindicate
himself. His many friends and supporters had already vindicated and exonerated
him and all that remained was the completion of the formal judicial process for his
vindication.
Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned over the fact that the proposed ordinance con-
sisted of 10 pages just passed out with no possibility of digesting it.
Councilman Seymour expressed his surprise that Councilman Kott took it upon himself
to undertake such a heavy responsibility in offering some election campaign control
without first sharing the problem with the public, as well as his fellow Council
Members. He also considered it unusual that such an ordinance was proposed at this
time when filing had already opened in the current political campaign and certain
candidates for offices had already begun fund raising activities based upon what they
understood to be the previous rules of the game. If Councilman Kott was suggesting
a good method of reducing influence on public office, he was most supportive, but
for one Councilperson alone almost secretively to work on such an ordinance and then
to propose it after a political campaign had begun, he considered it to be out of
order. The ordinance was worthy of discussion, but it should more appropriately
come from a grass roots citizen's committee and an environment outside of the heated
political arena.
78-45
~Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
A brief discussion followed between Councilmen Seymour and Kott, at the conclusion
of which Councilman Kott referred to a book, "Political Reform in Orange County,"
which he had in his possession and stated there was nothing in the proposed ordinance
that was not contained in the book. Thus, it was a grass roots movement by the
Citizens Direction Finding Committee (CDFC).
Councilman Roth was also surprised at the ten-page document with no possibility to
comment since no opportunity was provided to read it beforehand. He did agree there
was a need for controlling campaign expenses, considering the excessive costs involved
in a campaign for office, which costs were now filtering down to the local level.
However, he considered such a proposition should be properly turned over to a Charter
Review Committee to make recommendations. He would support some type of limitation,
but could not today support the proposed ordinance, nor was he prepared to discuss
it.
ORDINANCE NO. 3811: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3811 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3811: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING CHAPTER 1.02 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTROL.
162: H.E.R.E. AND ORANGE COUNTY COMMITTEE ON ASSAULTS AGAINST WOMEN: Councilman
Kott explained that several months ago when the representative from H.E.R.E. (Help
Eliminate Rape Everywhere) spoke to the Council, the City committed itself to funding
$2,000 if the organization could raise an additional $8,000 from other sources. He
then referred to a letter received from the Orange County Committee on Assaults
Against Women opposing H.E.R.E. and alleging the organization seemed to be top-heavy
in administrative salaries as opposed to direct patient/client services. He thus
moved to direct the City Clerk to write to both organizations inviting representatives
of each to come to a Council meeting to discuss the matter. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager Talley added that in H.E.R.E.'s original request to the City, they were
under the assumption they would be awarded a $130,000 grant from the Orange County
Criminal Justice Council. That grant, however, was now a lesser amount conditioned
on two things, (1) that H.E.R.E. would find a city to sponsor them, which they did,
and (2) Anaheim would consent to the lower amount. Thus, they (H.E.R.E.) would be
back to explain the matter to the Council since the total amount of the grant was
approximately $10,000 as compared to $130,000.
123: ADVERTISING SPACE ON ANAHEIM STADIUM SCOREBOARD: (Coca-Cola Company) The
City Clerk stated that a communication dated January 16, 1978, was received from
the Angels indicating they had no interest in the advertising rights on the Anaheim
Stadium scoreboard.
Councilman Thom offered a resolution authorizing an agreement with the Coca-Cola
Company for advertising rights for five years on the Anaheim Stadium Scoreboard.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Jim Dooley, Stadium Staff Assistant speaking for Mr.
Ltegler who was out of town, explained that the prior week staff met with the
Coca-Cola representative from Atlanta in the City Attorney's office and subse-
quently prepared a draft agreement to be returned to Coca-Cola which was being
mailed to them today. Thus, it would take at least another week before the people
in Atlanta would have an opportunity to review the agreement. He, therefore,
recommended that the matter be continued.
78-46
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jan.u.ary 17, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Thom withdrew his resolution.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the proposed agree-
ment with Coca-Cola Company for advertising rights for five years on the Anaheim
Stadium Scoreboard was continued for three weeks as requested by staff. MOTION
CARRIED.
175: REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF THE SUNDESERT PROJECT - CITY OF BURBANK: Request by
the City of Burbank for support of the Sundesert project by letter or resolution
to State legislators and to the Chairman of the State Energy Resources Conserva-
tion and Development Commission was submitted.
Councilman Thom moved to deny the requested support. Councilman Kott seconded
the motion. The motion failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, support of the Sun-
desert project by letter or resolution to State legislators and to the Chairman of
the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission was approved.
Councilmen Kott and Thom voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
115: AVENUE OF THE FLAGS PROJECT: (request by William Erickson to address the
Council) Mr. William Erickson, 301 East North Street, explained that the letter
dated January 12, 1978, as submitted to the Council was discussed with the entire
ad hoc committee, the Mayor, Norm Priest and Bob Lyons of Redevelopment, Lloyd
Trapp of the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department, and in the absence of City
Manager Talley and the Director of Public Works, Assistant City Manager William
Hopkins was given information relative to the request. He thereupon turned the
request over to Mayor Thom, Councilman Seymour and Mr. Priest. Mr. Priest had
previously indicated he believed that tax increment funds could be used for flags,
poles, and miscellaneous, but was doubtful relative to maintenance.
The Mayor stated that the Council had before it an update of the Avenue of the
Flags project. He reiterated his support for the concept which he considered to
be a beautiful one and most appropriate for a tourist-oriented city such as Anaheim.
He thereupon asked Mr. Priest to speak to the propitiousness of an early-on
acquisition of poles and flags or funding through Redevelopment.
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected that she did not recall any recommendation from
the Redevelopment Commission. Although they considered it to be a good concept,
when the matter of funding was approached, there were second thoughts.
Mr. Priest stated that he did not believe the Redevelopment Commission had voted
on the matter, but they supported the concept strongly from the outset. To date,
the funding had been through private subscription, thus the Commission did not have
an opportunity to specifically vote on any funding methods.
Councilman Roth questioned whether or not the concept of private subscription was
being abolished.
78-4 7
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M~
The Mayor explained that he did not believe it was abolished, but the problem
arose in the fact that the project was two to three years away and it was extremely
difficult for Mr. Erickson to firm up subscriptions at this point in time. However,
he wanted to obtain flag poles before any price escalation and in order to stay
within the original funding parameters.
Councilman Seymour explained the original concept was to solicit private donations
to pay for the cost of each of the flag poles and flags; subsequently a plaque
would be suitably placed at the base of all of the poles inscribed with the name
of the donor. He believed that concept to be very sound. However, as explained
by the Mayor, it was difficult for someone to donate $500 to $600 to something
that would not be a reality for approximately three years. Therefore, the response
had not been appreciable. Input received indicated the idea was a solid one and
he was confident that efforts would be successful in obtaining private participation
on the project as the reality of the realignment of Lincoln approached. He felt
strongly that the project needed community support and if the community did not give
that support, he would then be opposed to it.
Councilman Roth suggested sending the matter back to the Redevelopment Commission
to obtain their support and also to give an opportunity to private citizens to
appear not only before the Commission, but also the Council. He had voted for it
previously and was in favor of the concept, but he was reluctant to commit the City
relative to expenditures without knowing if, in fact, it was what the people wanted.
MOTION: Councilman Roth thereupon moved to refer the Avenue of the Flags project
to the Redevelopment Commission for their perusal, input and subsequent recommenda-
tion, as well as their recommendation for funding of the project. Councilman Kott
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Priest stated that two cost elements were involved, the
first being the initial cost which he believed could be appropriately handled through
Community Development or Redevelopment. The second was maintenance over the long-term
which could not be borne by either entity, cost for which would be between $1,000 to
$4,000 per year.
Assistant City Engineer William Devitt explained that his department had been involved
over the past several weeks in discussions with various consulting engineers and they
had received proposals for the sign and plan preparation for the Lincoln Avenue
realignment. Agreements were in the City Attorney's Office and drafts had been
written for the proposed work. Included in that work was work that would be performed
by the consulting engineers, and their plans included the Avenue of the Flags project.
Thus, the Engineering Department was proceeding with the project in mind.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
114: ZION LUTHERAN CHURCH - WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 214: Request by Reverend
W. Matthias, Zion Lutheran Church, for waiver of Council Policy No. 214, Traffic
Signal Assessment Fees, relating to the relocation of the Zion Lutheran Church
Christian Day School from 205 North East Street to 222 North East Street.
Pastor Elmer Matthias briefed the Council on his letter dated December 19, 1977,
explaining that they were replacing an existing facility located across the street
from the church, thus relocating the day school to the church site. Therefore, they
considered their request for a waiver in this instance to be a reasonable one. He
78-48
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
understood that the very recent assessment of fees for traffic signalization had
its origins in asking new agencies who came into the redevelopment area to pay
their proper portions of cost.
Mayor Thom stated he did not disagree and believed that moving the school from
the west to the east side of the street would be even more beneficial from a
traffic standpoint and he personally looked favorably upon the request for a
waiver.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer explained that the fee was not a specific expenditure
for any particular signal, but a general assessment for traffic signals as described
in Council Policy No. 214 which established certain fees for certain land uses
based on traffic demand. It also included any additions to existing facilities
and the subject project fell under that particular heading.
Councilman Seymour stated that his intent when he voted to approve the traffic
light assessment fee for the most part was on new developments. On the subject
project, even though an expansion was involved, he did not believe it would add
to traffic to any great degree, but would improve the situation at the particular
location involved, as pointed out by the Mayor. He had also suggested recently
that action be taken waiving such fees in the redevelopment project, and, therefore,
it would be consistent for the Council to support the request for waiver in this
case. He suggested that in the future, each be considered on a case basis and if
a project materially affected traffic patterns, then a fee would be warranted.
Mr. Singer suggested that if the Council decided to permit an exception, that it be
used in the future in the case of non-profit organizations.
Councilman Seymour stated that was not the basis, but only the fact that the proposed
expansion was not going to additionally burden traffic.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, request for waiver of
Council Policy No. 214, Traffic Signal Assessment Fees, relating to the relocation
of the Zion Lutheran Church Christian Day School from 205 North East Street to
222 North East Street was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
173: APPLICATION FOR TAXICAB PERMIT: Application by Manuel M. Lozano, Lozano
Limousine/Tours, requesting a permit to operate a taxicab, was submitted.
Mr. Manuel Lozano, 621 Chippewa, #158, briefed the Council on his background and
the make-up of his family consisting of his wife and seven children for which he
was the sole full-time supporter. In June of 1977, he applied for and was granted
a Limousine Service Permit and subsequently explained the difficulties in building
the business since all the establishments he approached had an office on the
premises of the Yellow Cab Company, Gray Line Tours and the like. That was the
reason he decided to ask for a taxicab permit.
Mr. Lozano continued that there were many people who came to Anaheim from South
America, Mexico and Central America that spoke Spanish. He thus believed it would
be good for the City to have an extra service offering a bilingual capability.
Based on that point and the fact that there was only one taxicab company in the
City at present, it would be beneficial to have another service in the City, and he
was before the Council to obtain the permission to provide that other service.
78-49
_C. ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked for clarification that was Mr. Lozano's intent to expand his
business beyond the limousine tours to a full-blown taxicab operation.
Mr. Lozano stated his intent was to have a taxicab and he would buy more than
the one vehicle he now owned if given the license. The best way for him to operate
would be on a taxi basis which would thus enable him to park any place. The permit
would not necessarily give him the ability to buy more cabs as he did not have the
money to do so. He only wanted one additional cab besides the limousine he now had
or possibly two. He would use the van as a taxicab or change it to a car, whatever
was necessary to meet regulations.
The Mayor asked the City Attorney to speak to the omissions in Mr. Lozano's applica-
tion.
City Attorney Hopkins indicated there were two technical defects, (1) the lack of
an insurance policy or bond attached to the application, and (2) information as to
where the taxicab stand would be located.
Mr. Lozano explained there was no problem relative to the insurance. He already
carried the normal insurance and he had a letter from Hall Insurance Agency in
Tustin stating they would give him whatever insurance was requested by the City
immediately. He could supply a copy of the insurance policy today.
Relative to the location of his stand, right now it would be the apartment where
he lived, but thereafter he would park outside one of the hotels if the establish-
ment gave him permission to do so.
Mr. Hopkins explained that the Code merely required the location where the stand
would be; that is, where the cab would normally stand. However, there should be
some evidence of permission to do so from the owner of a hotel or wherever Mr.
Lozano was going to park.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Lozano stated he and his son would operate
the business on an 8- or 10-hour a day basis, but if the City required more service,
then he would perhaps need someone for 24 hours.
Councilman Seymour stated that he would like to be able to vote in favor of the
taxicab permit for Mr. Lozano, but his concern was that upon his (Lozan~s) being
successful, .he would be back before the Council to add additional vehicles which
would be acceptable. However, someday the Council was going to be forced to make
a decision as to whether or not to grant a number of permits for taxicab companies
to operate in the City. He had seen cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco
where there were unlimited permits for taxicabs, causing a chaotic situation and
the resultant deterioration in the level of quality of service. Such a competitive
burden was placed upon franchises that they were unable to keep up their equipment
properly or provide adequate service. In the end, all the companies would lose
leading to such things as price "rip offs". Although he was sympathetic to Mr.
Lozano, his concern, if the Council granted the permit, was how it was possible to
say no to the next person. It would be the first step in a chain that would result
in two things, (1) business competitiveness that would lead to destruction, and
most important, (2) lack of quality of service to visitors to the City.
78-50
C.ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor agreed with Councilman Seymour on the point relative to the issuance of
unlimited permits, thus reducing effectiveness in creating chaotic service. How-
ever, the ordinance gave the Council the ability to grant or deny such permits
as they saw fit. As far as Mr. Lozano was concerned, he saw something unique
in that he was offering a bilingual service. He viewed the situation as a minority
entrepreneur trying to break into a market where he could perform a service, and
the operation would not be of a size as to pose any threat to an existing service.
The Council had it within its power to say that it would not go further. The
City could also then say it was not cutting off all other cab companies, but in fact,
there were two, Yellow Cab and Lozano.
Councilman Seymour stated if the Mayor's basis was his desire to provide a minority
entrance, considering the number of different minorities, if another approached the
Council the next week, he wondered if they were going to show an equal response.
MOTION: The Mayor reiterated it was in their purview to grant or deny future appli-
cations. There should be at least one minority and the first one in should be the
first one served. He thereupon moved to grant a permit to operate a taxicab to Mr.
gozano.
Before any action was taken on the motion, Mr. Larry Slagle, 1619 East Lincoln, repre-
senting the Yellow Cab Company in Anaheim, explained that he was also sympathetic to
the desires of the individual requesting the permit but some questions that had been
raised by the applicant should be addressed. He (Lozano) had contacted certain agen-
cies and businesses regarding his service and was told they were already experiencing
good service or they had an operator. He believed the number of complaints received
through the City relative to Yellow Cab were probably minimal. He had received none
himself and that was also true of the Chamber of Commerce. The situation in Los
Angeles with Yellow Cab was very different than that in Anaheim since his was a family
owned and operated business having served the City for many years, which business would
continue for a long time. He considered the situation comparable to the public util-
ities in some ways. It was a matter of who was going to provide the burden or type
of service necessary. If there was one taxi service, the burden for providing that
service was clearly definable. If one service became competitive with another, that
type of program would no longer exist.
Mr. Slagle stated it would be no hardship on him if, at 2:00 a.m., he had to ~espond
to a call out on the perimeters of the City. If there were two companies, each would
have to compete in the area where the most business was available. Although one cab
would not dramatically impact Yellow Cab service, at the same time it would establish
a precedent.
Mr. Slagle explained further that their rates were amongst the lowest in California,
and relative to local service, the philosophy of his management group was to make
theirs a good company and to be the only one operating in the City providing that
they gave good service. They also had bilingual operators and drivers of all minor-
ities. He then referred to a City ordinance which he believed related to need and
necessity, and he did not feel such a need had been adequately shown. He respectfully
asked the Council to deny the requested application.
The Mayor stated he understood Mr. Slagle's concerns and if another large cab company
were involved, he would not take the same posture. He reiterated, however, that he
did not view Mr. Lozano as any threat. He commended Mr. Slagle and his company for
78-51
City ..Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
the excellent service they provided, but as he (Slagle) was aware, the City had been
severely criticized in the past for granting only one taxicab permit. Relative to
need and necessity, he believed there was such a need in helping a minority entre-
preneur get started and Mr. Lozano filled the need and necessity burden by providing
a full-fledged bilingual service. He did not agree that such action would be setting
a precedent.
MOTION: Councilman Roth was sympathetic with Mr. Lozano's desire and was first trying
to ascertain if there was anything that could be done to assist him relative to his
limousine service or if he (Lozano) was aware of the potential business in providing
his service. However, he was concerned about an operator with only one vehicle which
would put Mr. Lozano at a disadvantage especially if somebody wanted to go from the
far eastern part of the City to Disneyland. After considering the situation, he
believed it would be a bad move on the Council's part to approve the permit and there-
upon offered a motion to deny the requested permit.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Kott seconded the first motion by Councilman
Thom for approval of the permit. Councilman Thom stated that the motion included
Mr. Lozano's compliance with all criteria in the ordinance and pending completion
of all insurance requirements, stand location and all applicable code sections.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Mr. Lozano relative to
business volume with his present limousine service, as well as whether or not the
hotels and Chamber of Commerce were aware of his service. She suggested that the
Chamber could help in the form of a leaflet placed in various hotels and there were
many people who preferred an eight-seat type of vehicle.
Mr. Lozano explained that he had only 40 or 50 customers and it would be necessary
to advertise in the newspaper to acquire more. He then reiterated the situation
relative to providing his service to the hotels wherein they all had established
offices or other companies providing cab or sightseeing service.
Later in the meeting, Councilwoman Kaywood announced that Larry Sierk, Executive
Director of the Chamber of Commerce, asked Mr. Lozano to meet with him, and he would
get enough business for Mr. Lozano's limousine service to keep him occupied.
Councilman Seymour then asked Mr. Lozano if he was prepared to carry the responsibility
of serving the entire community and offered the example of a distant call within
Anaheim, or if his aim was to capture some of the business in the visitor and conven-
tion center area of the City.
Mr. Lozano explained that he could not provide service to the distant areas of Anaheim
because he did not have the funds necessary to buy radio equipment or more cars to
provide fast service. He was offering only additional service, for instance outside of
Disneyland, where he wouid be available to offer his bilingual service. He was asking
only for one car and if in the future it required one more, he would buy another one.
Councilman Seymour stated he would vote in opposition to the motion because of the
reasons he expressed earlier and also because Mr. Lozano clarified that in the taxi-
cab business in Anaheim, profit was to be made in the Disneyland and Convention
Center area, the losers would be those providing service to the rest of the community.
As Mr. Lozano stated, he would like to participate in the good business, but he was
not willing to serve the rest of the City. Thus, if the permit were approved, the
78-52
~City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Council would be expressing to Yellow Cab they would have to give up some of the
good business while still being responsible for providing service to the rest of
the community, and he wanted service for every citizen.
A vote was taken on Councilman Thom's motion approving the request for a permit
to operate a taxicab by Mr. Lozano which failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Roth
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (3:10 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-31 AND VARIANCE NO. 2982: Application
by James D. and Loneal A. Horton, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-2400
to construct one single-family dwelling and four fourplexes with waiver of maximum
structural height on property located at the southeast corner of Lakeview Avenue
and McKinnon Drive.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-266, declared the
subject project exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact
report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and
further, denied Reclassification No. 77-78-31 and Variance No. 2982 (PC77-267).
The action of the Planning Commission was appealed by Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney
for the applicant.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
Councilman Seymour entered the Council Chamber. (3:12 P.M.)
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and desirous of
being heard.
Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney for the applicant, first called upon the property owner
to give some explanation as to the reason for his request, as well as historical
background on the subject property resulting in the present hardship.
Mr. James Horton, 837 East Almond, Orange, explained that he purchased 4.5 acres
of an orange grove in 1963, before the freeway came through which he had no idea
was going to occur. The State subsequently purchased 3.5 acres. Since then, his
taxes have increased from $200 to approximately $600 to $700 a year and he had been
paying that amount for approximately 9 years plus $35 to $40 for weed abatement.
Mr. Farano stated that although the property was not an odd shaped piece, but had
good configuration, the problem was that it backed onto a freeway off-ramp westbound
onto McKinnon Drive. Mr. Farano then described some of the finer points of the pro-
posed project from an artist's rendering consisting of one single-family residence and
78-53
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
four fourplexes, one three-bedroom unit and three two-bedroom units containing
approximately 4,000 to 5,000 square feet in each one of the residential structures.
The original proposal was for a 7-11 Market (see minutes of September 27, 1977).
In denying that project, the Council went on record saying that at least part of
the property was suitable for commercial use. However, because of the general
attitude of the neighborhood, they were certain that any kind of commercial develop-
ment would continue to cause problems. They considered the new proposal to be a
viable alternative.
Mr. Farano continued that the project was reviewed extensively by HACMAC with a
7.5 voting for and 3.5 voting against. In addition, from the standpoint of support,
the lady who lived next door to the project (Rose Ann Kirschman) authorized him to
state that she would have appeared today if she was able to do so to indicate her
support just as she had done before the Planning Commission.
Relative to the one waiver they were requesting, the proposed single-family residence
abutting the existing R-1 was for the purpose of trying to shield the R-1 zone
against visual intrusion. Thus, Mr. Kirschman's house would be buffered against the
fourplexes, and in addition, the design of the roof-line of the proposed single-
family residence was such so that there would be no visual intrusion by any of the
fourplexes into either the existing R-1 residences or in the proposed single-family
residence. He realized the significance of the 150-foot waiver, but the hardship of
the location had to be considered, not only the physical characteristics, but also
the emotional aspects. They had also considered leaving the land vacant, but the
only way they could offer the visual protection was by constructing a single-family
residence. His client would just as soon leave the land vacant because he would not
be making any money on that new house.
Mr. Farano then expressed his disagreement with the reason that the Planning Commission
denied the application because of commercial use. He maintained that if they were
able to tell the Planning Commission that they would reduce the entire site to single-
family residences, they would have favored such a proposal. Thus, the denial was not
because of the commercial aspect, but because the Planning Commission was in disagree-
ment with fourplexes. They tried to lay out single-family residences as suggested
by the Planning Commission, but were unable to do so, and the project they were proposing
was the best they could come up with without going into commercial. Further, the
City's General Plan indicated that approximately one-half of the property was suitable
for commercial and hence they thought they were going to construct a 7-11 Market with
very few problems. There was also some indication on the part of the Planning Depart-
ment that the application would deserve and require a General Plan Amendment before
filing tract maps.
Mr. Farano requested, if the Council voted favorably on the project, that they do so
with one particular finding. The City Code stated that no local agency shall approve
a map unless the legislative body shall find that the proposed subdivision, together
with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General
Plan, and further, that the proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the General
Plan only if compatible with the objectives, process and general land uses specified
in the plan. Basically, his burden of proof was to make some showing indicating that
what the applicant was trying to do was at least compatible. Mr. Farano considered
the plan not only compatible, but also the most desirable thing that could happen to
the property. Even though they had been asked about the possibility of single-family
78-54
--City Hail~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
residences, duplexes or triplexes, he maintained the property was not suitable for
low-density living because it could not offer low-density amenities. There was a
large commercial shopping center being developed across the street and a freeway
off-ramp to the south and thus it did not measure up to the single-family atmosphere
the City tried to project.
In concluding, Mr. Farano reiterated that the project proposed was the best and most
desirable that could be presented in the area and should be approved accordingly. As
well, if approval were granted, that the Council make a finding that it was compatible
with the General Plan in that area.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Farano stated that the corner fourplex was
approximately 25 feet to 30 feet from Lakeview and McKinnon and sound attenuation
would be undertaken that would bring the noise level within City requirements--45
decibels inside and 65 decibels outside. Block walls would be installed surrounding
the project, as well as landscaping that would provide sound attenuation as required,
with the possibility of double windows on those structures to the south along with
any insulation that would be required. He stipulated that they would comply with
all sound attenuation requirements.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard either in favor or in opposition.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz, stated that her association (Santa Ana Canyon Improve-
ment Association) expressed concern about the project mainly because of the traffic
situation considering the surrounding areas and they were anxious to see if the
applicant could come in with single-family residences and four duplexes. Children
traveled from the Riverdale area to Rio Vista Junior High as well as children going
from Crescent to the Riverdale area. As well, there was a rise on Lakeview causing
poor visibility. A great deal of construction was also in progress in the northeast
industrial section, generating truck traffic on Lakeview. They did not want to pre-
clude anyone from utilizing their land, but believed that the proposed plan would
create problems. The people on McKinnon would have to contend with traffic with the
commercial development, and with the proposed 16 units, approximately 32 additional
cars. She reiterated they would be in favor of single-family residences and four
duplexes, but four fourplexes would only compound the traffic situation in the area.
Also, it was never fully resolved to her satisfaction why the project did not require
a General Plan Amendment.
Mrs. Dinndorf then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that she did attend the HACMAC
meeting at which the project was discussed and those who approved of the project
conceded that a problem piece of property was involved, and the alternative proposed
was better than a 7-11 Market.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked Mrs. Dinndorf which people in the immediate neighbor-
hood she was speaking for since her organization was not in that area.
Mrs. Dinndorf stated that her association covered the entire Scenic Corridor and
presently consisted of approximately 250 members. There were two people in the
immediate neighborhood for whom she was speaking namely, Cathy Shepard, and prior
to the HACMAC meeting, Dave Brown. Mrs. Shepard lived on McKinnon and she preferred
single-family residences, if not, duplexes.
78-55
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17,. 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Farano interjected that relative to traffic it was a known planning fact that
single-family residences developed just as many, if not more, people than apartments
or fourplexes and since big lots were involved, four- and five-bedroom homes could
be constructed on them. He contended that nothing would reduce traffic problems
at the subject location and what they offered was a compromise that would give the
least amount of traffic disturbance.
Councilman Seymour recalled that when the 7-11 Market was proposed, the closest
neighbor, Mrs. Kirschman, and many residents attended the public hearing before the
Council. At the last Planning Commission meeting wherein revised plans were submitted,
there was only one person in opposition and now Mrs. Dinndorf's association whose
members were quite distant from the subject property were objecting. Councilman
Seymour was interested in knowing if the applicant met with the homeowners directly
affected, and, if so, what their reaction was to the project.
Mr. Farano clarified that he had met with the residents on more than one occasion and
the general attitude was that the proposed project was better than a 7-11 Market, but
they would prefer single-family homes. They were not as enthusiastic as they would
like to be, but they were not totally in opposition.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked to hear from those neighbors who were opposed.
Mr. Steve Ward, 425 Shaster West, stated that he spoke with both neighbors adjacent
to his property and they felt the project would not be in line with the neighborhood.
He had not had the opportunity to previously oppose the 7-11 Market because he had
only recently moved into the neighborhood.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Seymour stated that the Council was opposed when the 7-11 project was
submitted, as well as the entire neighborhood. Although he shared their feeling in
their preference for single-family residences or a lower density of duplexes with a
combination of single-family, it was his opinion the land owner had done as much as
could be expected in presenting a viable alternative. He had taken steps to insure
that his immediate neighbor, who was most impacted by the project, was buffered by
a single-family residence and thus, had gained her support. Further, the applicant
stipulated to measures that would be taken regarding sound attenuation. Relative to
traffic, studies had been undertaken by staff indicating that the type of development
proposed would not contribute any greater traffic than single-family residences. The
Council was already aware of the traffic problems at the subject location as stated
by Mrs. Dinndorf and they had taken the first step to mitigate them by means of a
crossing guard to protect the school children and further studies were being under-
taken relative to th~ installation of a traffic signal. He reiterated that the
layout as proposed would give the least additional impact on traffic.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that HACMAC did have an opportunity to evaluate the
project and the same arguments were presented at their meeting as presented today
with almost 2 to 1 still in favor. Further, the absence of a large number of resi-
dents at the meeting today in opposition, as was the case at the first meeting, was
an indication that the residents now supported the project.
78-56
C_ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council finds that this project will have no
significant effect on the environment since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for general commerical and hillside low-density residential land
uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are
involved in the proposal; that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates
no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact effects; and is,
therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-42 for adoption, authorizing
the preparation of the necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested and finding
the development consistent with the City's General Plan, and Resolution No. 78R-43
for adoption, granting Variance No. 2982, thus reversing the findings of the Planning
Commission, but subject to Interdepartmental recommendations and stipulations of the
applicant relative to sound attenuation. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-42: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE
CHANGED. (77-78-31, RM-2400)
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-43: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2982.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-42 and 78R-43 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1782: Application by Albert De Mascio
and Dale Family Trust, to permit a public dance hall with waiver of minimum number
of parking spaces on CL zoned property located at 125 North State College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-278, reported that the
Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the defini-
tion of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements
for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
r~quir~m~nt to file an EIR and, ~urther, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 1782.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Gilbert A. Thomas, agent for
the applicant.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and desirous of
being heard.
78-57
C. ity Hall, Anaheim2 California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 172 19782 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Gilbert Thomas, 1442 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 119, Tustin, Agent for the appli-
cant, first stated that, in his opinion, the Planning Commission appropriately
denied their initial petition because at the time they were in the stages of con-
struction and trying to lay out the interior of the existing building. Construc-
tion was now finished and they had an exact plan of the interior which Mr. Gilbert
submitted to the Council. There would be no fixed seating, and the total seating
area for public use was 1741 square feet giving a maximum requirement of 50 parking
spaces. In revising the parking area, they now had 54 spaces available and could
acquire 10 additional spaces if the Council so desired to meet the needs of the
community. They did not want to be a problem in the neighborhood, and the neighbors
wanted to change the character of the facility (Jezebel's) which was, at present,
a dinner dancing place and cocktail lounge. They wanted to charge admission to
control the type of crowd that frequented the establishment and eliminate the serving
of food so that the facility would only be a public dance hall. Both, however, were
permitted uses in the area.
In answer to Councilman Kott, Miss Santalahti stated the Planning Commission's major
concerns were relative to parking, as well as the fact that the facility might generate
more traffic than a restaurant. Her personal reaction was that the parking was the
primary concern.
Mr. Ken Spiker, owner of the proposed dance hall, explained at the request of the
Council, that he also owned a night club in Long Beach called the Blow-out which
was a college-type of night club entirely different from the proposed dance hall.
The operation proposed, and as being operated presently on State College Boulevard,
consisted of very high quality live entertainment, music and dancing in a facility
in which he had already invested a great deal of money which catered to the 25- to
40-year old age group. It was not similar to Ichabod's which catered to the 18- to
23-year old age group. Although they served food at present, they wanted to eliminate
their lunch and small dinner requirement and fulfill their real desire to become a
total night club. He reiterated it was running in that manner at present with no
problems and no police reports, but many police officers did frequent the establish-
ment as customers. They were open during the day, however, entertainment did not
start until 9:00 p.m. and 90 percent of their business was between 8:00 p.m. and
2:00 a.m.
Upon further questioning, Mr. Spiker continued that the design of the night club
consisted of more stand-up than seating capacity. There was no fixed seating, but
basically cocktail tables and the pool area was converted into a backgammon room.
Forty-three percent of the area was stand-up with areas overlooking the sunken
dance floor, backgammon area and stage. Customers came primarily to dance and not
Just to listen to music.
Councilman Roth explained that before he could accept revised plans and particularly
the downgrading of parking spaces from 80 to 50, the plans should go back to staff
or the Planning Commission for recommendations since the change was radical and
not minor. There was not sufficient opportunity for the Council to evaluate the new
plans accordingly.
Mr. Spiker indicated that one of the problems that the Planning Commission had was the
fact that they counted the dance floor as square footage (2,804) as well as the bar
area and no clientele was allowed behind the bar. He did not have the plan drawn up
at the time of the meeting, but submitted revised plans now showed the exact layout
and the 1700-square foot figure was exactly correct.
78-58
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Miss Santalahti clarified that normally staff made the calculations on gross floor
areas. They did count everything other than areas distinctly not for usage, but
they did not go behind the bar.
Councilman Seymour maintained the problem was the amount of parking in relation to
the volume of patrons, and, in his opinion, residential streets would be impacted
with people wanting to park in order to patronize the successful operation.
Discussion followed between Councilman Seymour and Mr. Spiker relative to the parking
problem, wherein Mr. Spiker indicated that they had been opened one month and he
could verify there was no parking across Lincoln Avenue. He had already gone to the
public dance hall concept and no problems had emerged. The only thing he was request-
ing was permission for a door-charge of $2 on weekends and $1 on weeknights. He also
stated that his operation could not make it on only 44 or 50 patrons a night as ques-
tioned by Councilman Seymour.
Mr. Thomas interjected that more than one patron would be coming per car and reiterated
the availability of another ten parking spaces if the Council so recommended bringing
the total to 64. This would provide parking for approximately 150 people which, in
actuality, would be a transitory crowd. They had been operating exactly the way they
hoped to operate in the future, but wanted City Council authorization to permit them
to remove the kitchen and to charge admission.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mrs. Carrie Coykendall, 15332 East La Palma, stated she was opposed to the public
dance hall without adequate parking. With a waiver of the minimum number of parking
spaces, patrons would have to park on the side streets in mostly residential areas.
This would create extra noise late at night or early in the morning plus the genera-
tion of litter. She wanted these problems considered before the Council considered
granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1782. Although the site was distant from where
she presently lived, she owned property to the rear of the proposed dance hall on
Coffman Street and such action would interfere with her tenants.
Mr. Gerald Griffin, 312 Curtis Way, stated he lived 150 feet away from the proposed
dance hall and parking was his main objection since there would be intrusion into
the residential neighborhood. Additionally, there would be noise intrusion with live
music which would make it difficult for him and his neighbors to get any sleep. Even
though he lived on the east side of State College Boulevard, he was already feeling
the effects and he confirmed for Councilman Roth that people were parking in that
neighborhood and walking across State College Boulevard. He emphasized that a public
dance hall was not compatible with the residential area.
Dr. Marcus Gartner, 412 North Dwyer, explained that he owned lots at 205 North State
College Boulevard as well as an office on the third lot to the north at 227. Dr.
Gartner pointed out the location from a map of the area. He had appeared originally
when the organization of Smiling Sam's was allowed in, which establishment was
going to be a family neighborhood sandwich shop and pizza parlor and possibly pool
hall within a year, they met none of the requirements set forth and it was now mainly
a bar and had been going steadily downhill for the last ten years. Although he was
not in the area at night, he observed the refuse that was left the following day.
The reason there was little parking on the vacant lot immediately to the north in the
78-59
C_ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
last month, was due to the fact it was a sea of mud because of the rains. However,
he had counted up to 40 cars on his lot. Although he did not care if they parked
there because it kept the weeds down, the refuse was considerable. Now there was
a question of accommodating several hundred people on the premises even if only for
a short period of time. If parking was not sufficient, patrons would move into the
adjacent vacant lot, and if full, would move into the parking lot of his medical
center and they would not pick up after themselves. The location was not suitable
for such a large gathering of people. The Planning Commission was most concerned
about the parking and that was his main concern.
Mr. Karl Nielsen, representing the applicant, explained that relative to Dr. Gartner's
presentation, they employed a maintenance man to police the'inside, as well as out-
side areas daily. If any beer bottles, cans, or the like were in evidence, which
Mr. Nielson stated people brought with them, the maintenance man was eliminating
such refuse. He also did go to surrounding areas although he may not have done so
recently because of the rain. He had been told on several occasions that it was
his responsibility to consistently police the area. Relative to traffic, they were
already operating in the manner proposed with no problems and no one had approached
either him or Mr. Spiker regarding any other problems. He also mentioned the fact
that police officers frequented the establishment on their off-nights and he
maintained they would not do so if the business was not "clean" running. They only
wanted permission to institute a door-charge to compensate for band expenses.
Councilwoman Kaywood contended that the environment would be changed to a certain
extent by eliminating food.
Mr. Nielsen explained they were selling food only in a minor capacity and they did
want to eliminate serving of food 100 percent. However, he did not necessarily want
to do that, but instead wanted to continue lunches, but the law in Anaheim stated they
must serve food for lunch and dinner. The night time operation was different from
that during the day. Pursuant to Alcohol Beverage Control Board regulations, they
did not want any minors in their establishment. He reiterated it was a clean opera-
tion and they wanted it to remain so.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Seymour stated he found grounds for denial of the conditional use permit
the same as 'those of the Planning Commission. The proposed use would adversely affect
adjoining land uses in growth and development of the area; the size and shape
of the parcel was not adequate for the particular use, and the use of the property
as proposed would thus be detrimental to the adjoining neighborhood. He thereupon
offered Resolution No. 78R-44 for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1782,
upholding the decision of the Planning Commission.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor agreed with a portion of Councilman Seymour's
reasons for denial, that being the parking. 0therwise~ he did not consider the
public dance hall a bad use if the parking problem could be solved. He was of the
opinion it was the type of facility that would not serve to the detriment of the
rest of the area. State College Boulevard was a heavily trafficked area with a high
intensity of commercial use, and the noise would be continuing on that street which
would adversely impact residents bordering it. The requested use would neither add
nor detract from the existing conditions.
78-60
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-44: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1782.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-44 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1785: Application by Lee Combs and
Lowen V. and Louise E. Casey, to permit an automobile storage and impound yard
with waiver of required site screening on CH and PD-C zoned property located at
801 South Anaheim Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-284, reported that
the Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the re-
quirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically
exempt from the requirement to file an EIR and further, denied Conditional Use Permit
No. 1785.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Joseph Conrad, agent for
the applican~ and public hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and desirous of
being heard.
Mr. Joseph Conrad, 2262 West Coronet, owner of Joe Conrad's Automotive, 801 South
Anaheim Boulevard, explained his initial request through the Planning Commission
was relative to limited site screening of the property, but since that time, he
offered and would be more than willing to install a block wall fence surrounding
the property at least 8 feet high in order to preclude visual intrusion.
As background, Mr. Conrad explained that his business had expanded to where he had
to move from his former location at Ball Road and West Street and in so doing, looked
for the proper type of zoning in Anaheim to which he could move. He found out that
Jack White Pontiac was moving from their location on Anaheim Boulevard and thereafter
checked with Zoning and made sure the proper type zoning existed for his particular
use. When he finally obtained the lease on the property, he approached the Planning
Commission and filed for the necessary permits to operate the business. He initially
went in for a permit to allow some type of screening since he wished to improve the
property and stay at that location; the idea being if the Planning Commission objected
to the type of screening proposed, interwoven redwood slats on the existing chain
link fence, he would install a 350-foot block wall fence at a cost of approximately
$10,000. Since he was leasing the property, he wanted to be certain he would be
staying at that location before investing money in improvements. He maintained if the
property was properly screened initially, most of the residents' concerns would have
been eliminated.
78-61
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Conrad continued that petitions had been passed through the neighborhood in
opposition, and he had gone around the neighborhood himself and many signed his
petition. He considered it ironic that some people signed both petitions. He
remarked that if somebody handed a petition to a resident and indicated that a
junk yard was proposed next to their residence, they would not hesitate to sign.
He emphasized, however, that he was not proposing a junk yard, but reiterated he
wanted to improve the property. What he was asking for and what he was willing
to do would improve the property and also offset any noise level. Although there
may have been complaints initially relative to some of the activities on the property
during the three months he had been at that location, he was certain that he had
corrected 90 percent of the problems and the installation of the block wall would
resolve the balance. Mr. Conrad concluded by stating there were several people in
the audience who would be speaking on his behalf.
Councilman Roth questioned Mr. Conrad relative to the body shop that was located on
the premises, as well as repair work on vehicles, hours of operation, possible
light intrusion in residential areas late at night, and disposition of impounded
vehicles.
Mr. Conrad first explained there were three different areas set up on the large piece
of property with a boat facility display area in the front and their maintenance
facility in the rear. Behind them in the middle, he maintained a dispatch office and
service bays and towards the back, the proposed impound area. A body shop was located
on the southern part of the property owned by Gary Bolton. If he were denied the pro-
posed use, the body shop and boat sales would be able to continue.
Miss Santalahti interjected that they were permitted uses in the heavy commercial
zone. The towing aspect proposed could conceivably be a permitted use, but as soon
as the storage of vehicles was involved, that was another matter.
Mr. Conrad continued that he conducted heavy-type automotive repair on the premises
during normal business hours. In the evening, they only performed emergency road
service-type repairs since they were the AAA contractor serving the greater Anaheim
area. They would bring the car in and change a fan belt or install a generator, work
that did not require anything but a wrench. The work was done in a facility approxi-
mately 300 feet away from everybody else and no air wrenches were used. It was not
an evening operation and they were usually out of the facility by 9:00 p.m. and
during the rain, sometimes 10:00 p.m. There were no lights that shown from their
property to surrounding areas since the Jack White dealership moved because the
lights were not on. He confirmed that they did not dismantle automobiles on the
premises; they worked in service bay; and his improvements would increase the value
of the property in the area.
Relative to impound vehicles, Mr. Conrad stated that most such cars were turned over
very fast and generally picked up in a day or two, but at times a wreck would sit for
a while if it was involved in litigation or while awaiting disposition from insurance
companies. They did not work on the cars that were delivered there~ it was merely
an impound yard.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Mr. Conrad relative to those who signed his petition
and asked if they were all businesses, and as well, questioned a recent fire at his
business as reported in one of the letters received in opposition.
78-62
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Conrad answered that not only businesses signed his petition, but also peopie
who lived in the immediate area within 300 feet of the operation. The reported
fire was a very minor one which occurred in the body shop, and it was put out with
a fire extinguisher. No damage occurred except for a burnt up paint can.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard either in favor or in opposition and
further requested that those who wished to give public testimony in support of the
application do so first.
Mr. Gary Bolton explained that he owned the body shop on the same premises and his
understanding from talking to several of the neighbors living in the immediate area
was that the problem consisted at one time of excess noise occurring on weekends.
He stated that was his fault, and not Mr. Conrad's. They had now stopped body shop
work on weekends and after 5:15 in the evenings. Thus, the objectionable noise that
did occur, no longer existed.
Mr. Howard Kelly explained that he was employed by the Anaheim Fire Department where
he held the rank of Captain. He confirmed that the previously mentioned fire was a
very minor one and upon the arrival of the Fire Department, the fire was completely
out. He continued that on too many occasions, gentlemen such as Mr. Conrad had
been overlooked. As a public spirited taxpayer and through his own efforts and
expense, Mr. Conrad had taken the time to devote his manpower in delivering vehicles
beyond repair to different locations within the City where he donated them for use
by the City Fire Department, enabling the department to practice on the vehicles using
their tools, and to teach newer members of the Department to extract victims from
vehicles, and similar exercises. Because of such deeds, as well as his personal
knowledge of Mr. Conrad and his business, he was present on his behalf to urge the
Council to act favorably on the requested conditional use permit.
Mr. Talley asked Mr. Kelly to clarify if he was authorized to speak for the Fire
Chief since some people in the audience might take the view that a City Department
was trying to interject into this area because Mr. Kelly's entire statement revolved
around Fire Department activities. He wanted it very clear that in no way was the
Fire Department or the City administration testifying in the matter.
Mr. Kelly confirmed that he was testifying on his own behalf.
Mr. William Krebs, 996 Sire Place, explained that he had known Mr. Conrad for many
years and knew that he would attempt to do his best for the community. He had walked
around the area today and obtained some signatures for Mr. Conrad's petition and he
asked one of the gentlemen on Valencia, 2 blocks away at the end of the alley between
the church and the subject property, if he noted any unusual noise. The gentlemen
wrote on the petition that he noticed no noise and wished Mr. Conrad well. He (Krebs)
had also been to the location on several Saturdays and other days and noticed that the
general noise level was less than at his home since he lived approximately three
blocks from the 57 Freeway. Mr. Conrad also lived one block from the Riverside
Freeway and the noise level at the subject location was much less than at his house,
especially at night. Further, Mr. Conrad stipulated he would put up a fence and take
care of the visual intrusion. The paint and body shop had been on the premises for
some time so such activity was nothing new.
Mr. Krebs also pointed out that he signed the petition not only because of his
friendship with Mr. Conrad, but also to balance out the petition since it was rather
noticeable that signatures received in opposition were from Fullerton and Buena Park,
78-63
City Hall~ ~kn~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
and some did not even indicate their addresses. He believed that the nearby church
obtained the signatures from some of their members on the verbal statement that a
junk yard was being started which was not true. With a view-obstructing fence, the
church's problem would be solved. Further, the church organizational people should
first have talked to Mr. Conrad before they joined in the commercial/political dis-
pute whereupon they would have realized what was involved was not what they thought,
but a much smaller issue, and by so doing, would have minimized a lot of hard feelings.
He maintained they should involve themselves only where Christian moral items were
concerned. He urged the Council to decide in favor of Mr. Conrad.
Mr. Lowen Casey, 1408 Beverly Drive, representing ownership of the property, explained
that he had a complaint of unsightly and ugly junk. He was the new car dealer at
that location for 6 years and he maintained cars he took in on trade were much worse
in looks than anything Mr. Conrad had or would have, and they sat for several weeks
at a time. The people in opposition said they would rather look at those cars through
the fence rather than a nice block wall with cars parked behind it. Relative to the
complaint of too much activity in the area, he explained that the activity in the
service department was reduced by 30 percent under the new use since the boat dealer
used only 10 of the 30 bays available. Also, they sold 200 cars a month new and used
when they were at the subject location. Now, it was expected that 25 boats or less
would be sold each month. Thus, the activity around the area was reduced by more than
200 cars per month being taken in and out of the premises and around the area since
appraising of cars up and down the side streets had been eliminated. He requested
the Council to grant the permitted use in the zone.
Mr. Larry Murray, owner of the boat manufacturing facility, took issue with the
criminal aspect alluded to and the junk yard look of the place making it a lower
class area because of Mr. Conrad's business on the premises. He (Murray) dealt
with people in the $30,000 to $60,000 tax bracket, and some of his boats were in
the $30,000 range. Bankers were in and out of the premises at all times and he
leased boats to doctors and other people in high income brackets. If a junk yard
existed on his property, he would not be able to bring his clientele to the premises.
Mr. Murray stated at the last meeting there were complaints relative to work going
on at all hours of the night. He decided to spend time there in the evenings, some-
times as late as 1:00 a.m. and no noise was evident. Relative to dismantled cars,
as previously mentioned, cars were sent out to the Fire Department for their use and
then returned. That was the only kind of dismantling that was conducted.
In concluding, Mr. Murray stated that most of the people who received cards in the
mail regarding the hearing believed that Mr. Conrad was trying to put a junk yard on
the premises and did not want to install a fence, when, in actuality, he wanted to
improve the area. Mr. Conrad had stopped all his trucks going out the back gate
and down the main alley where the children were. During the first few weeks of his
operation, there was a lot of night work and other problems as a result of moving from
one location to another. Mr. Conrad had Justified everything he was going to do and
with the block wall fence, Mr. Murray maintained there would be no problem at all.
Mr. Darwin Stockwell, 1212 Maplewood, member of the Executive Board of the Methodist
Church directly in back of the yard in question, stated he was authorized by the
church fathers to bring a protest to the meeting. However, Mr. Conrad answered most
of the questions and if he followed through, their concerns would be alleviated.
Their main concern would be wrecked or towed cars coming in on Sundays down the alley
78-64
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
with their attendant unsightliness. If an 8-foot high block wall was installed
with no entrance off the alley, that would be acceptable. Their parking lot had
been used to go in and out of the gate, and they did not appreciate that use. He
reiterated that if an 8-foot block wall was installed with no gate for ingress or
egress onto the alley, they would withdraw their objection.
The following persons spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 1785:
Reverend Kimball Saville, St. Michael's Episcopal Church, explained they came to
the Planning Commission in support of the neighborhood who came to them and asked
for their support. Some of the names on the petition were from Fullerton, but the
individuals were acting as church members supporting the church in support of the
neighbors. At the Planning Commission meeting, a number of people on both sides of
MacArthur Manor and across South Street were very concerned about the noise and lights,
and the church was supporting them as the church also existed under a conditional
use permit. The 8-foot high wall would be a big improvement but an additional concern
of his was, living only a block away from the subject location for 20 years, that the
area was alive with children which was especially evident during their summer youth
programs. He was concerned that the proposed operation might interfere with those
children. He also delivered Meals on Wheels on South Street directly across from
the yard and was sympathetic with a man who lived there for 65 years who indicated
the lights kept him awake at night. Also, a minor consideration was the fact that
the church owned a large lot with one house on it at 218 West South Street which the
vestry might want to convert into two single-family residences at a later date and
property value would be involved.
Councilman Roth interjected that although Reverend Saville indicated his concern
about children, they were dealing with Anaheim Boulevard which was not a residential
street. The children would be involved relative to the alley area and if the peti-
tioner stipulated to no gates leading onto the alley, the problem would be solved.
Additional discussion followed wherein Councilman Kott pointed out to Reverend Saville
that the objection related to the towing and storing of vehicles and that the corner
had been an automobile agency of one type or another for 20 years and probably before
the churches were located there. He did not understand the philosophy of their
parishioners supporting the neighborhood in response to the neighborhood's request
for support as he maintained they were not facing the question as it existed. He
reiterated the question was towing and storing of vehicles, but the rest of the
activities had been there and could go on in the future.
Reverend Saville further explained that at the Planning Commission meeting, he heard
7 or 8 people on MacArthur Manor state there was a great change since the new business
moved in. Repairing was being continued at night, there was loud talk and beer cans
were thrown into the residents' yards. He tended to believe them and they were obvi-
ously concerned, being just across the fence. One lady testified she had no privacy.
The man who had lived in the neighborhood for 65 years had no objection to the car
agency, but to the new activity, noise, and light intrusion late at night. As well,
there were complaints relative to the workmen and their conversations. He reiterated
his personal objection was only the fact that there were many children in the neigh-
borhood since the new operation did not affect their church to any degree. He was
concerned about the general tenor of the neighborhood and was led to believe a new
situation now existed.
78-65
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott found it incongruous to have Meals on Wheels and children in the
same neighborhood. He traveled that area frequently and did not confront more
children than in any other neighborhood.
The Mayor stated that as a leader in the neighborhood it was quite acceptable and
understandable for Reverend Saville to take the position he had on the matter.
Mr. Nick Farmer, 106 West MacArthur Manor, stated there was a great difference between
a 24-hour towing and auto storage yard and a sales automobile dealership having a
service department that closed promptly at 5:00 p.m. and whose sales force stayed no
later than 9:00 p.m., but not that it was totally acceptable. Also, almost all of
gentlemen who spoke in favor of Mr. Conrad's request had direct business connections
with the property, but none lived near or on the property. Thus, he did not consider
them to be very good judges of what went on at the property on a day-by-day, 24-hour
basis. Further, although he did not wish to question Mr. Conrad's integrity, he
wondered how he could run a business illegally for four months and be so certain of
himself that he put his business address on his trucks before being issued a permit
to operate.
The Mayor interjected that there was one distinction. The question was relative to
the storage and impound yard and screening. It was very probable that under present
zoning, towing was a permitted use. Thus, the towing activity could go on as a matter
of right.
Mr. Farmer then referred to statements made relative to moving of the vehicles. He
and his neighbors were willing to testify that automobiles had been sitting there, and
some for four months or better. Although some of those might be from the body shop,
he was not convinced that vehicles were being moved out within 24 hours. Relative
to going outside of the neighborhood for petition signatures, he and 2 or 3 neighbors
collected approximately 140 signatures from people who lived within a 3-block radius
of the storage yard.
Councilman Kott stated if the use was illegal, he would be with the neighbors, but
it was his understanding that Mr. Conrad moved into the location with the sanction
of the City until it was discovered that perhaps he should have a conditional use
permit.
Miss Santalahti indicated that was not quite correct, but Mr. Conrad came to her
before he moved in to verify what he needed to do. A conditional use permit was
discussed and he was told he would have to acquire one. To her knowledge, he had
not been issued a business license and one would not be issued until the outcome
of the requested conditional use permit was known. He was informed by her that he
would have to get a use permit on the storage function.
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Farmer if he was aware that the body shop and boat shop
could continue as at present on the premises.
Mr. Farmer answered that he was prepared to do whatever was necessary if the problem
they were experiencing continued. Also, in answer to Councilman Roth, Mr. Farmer
stated the 8-foot block wall would eliminate the eyesore problem, but in any event the
storage yard would still be there with attendant problems relative to health and fumes.
Although he could not speak as someone directly affected since his house was across
the street, his main concern was the activity involved in the operation.
78-66
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Keith Bird, 121 MacArthur Manor, stated he was the homeowner directly in back
of the proposed combination boat shop, body shop and tow yard. Although Mr. Conrad
pictured himself to be a well respected member of the community, he felt on many
occasions he had not lived up to his actions. He had moved into the location in
August and whether or not he checked with the City ahead of time, he did not take
any action as far as improving or bettering the property or become responsible to
the community until complaints were filed by the community relative to excessive
noise. He had called at 10:00 p.m. the prior Thursday night to ask Mr. Conrad to
stop the noise as his 15-month old daughter was less that 40 to 50 feet away from
the establishment. He did realize when he moved into the house 5 years earlier that
they were in back of an automobile dealership, but the dealership was very responsive
to the community. They did have light problems, but when they contacted the dealer-
ship, they shut them off at a reasonable hour.
Mr. Bird stated that there were a lot of young people moving into the neighborhood
and they were very interested in upgrading Anaheim which was consistent with the
redevelopment efforts downtown and surrounding communities. He then referred to a
recent letter just received from the Mayor regarding upgrading the community and the
interest rates available if such improvements were instituted. They wanted to take
advantage of such an opportunity, but would be unable to do so if their entire
property values were going to be downgraded by the type of establishment being proposed.
Mr. Bird confirmed, as stated by Mr. Farmer, that cars were being stored in the yard,
and not being repaired, and impound was written all over them. He could easily see
the vehicles stored there because they were practically in his backyard. Such
storage occurred long before the Planning Commission allowed it to happen. He
stressed it was an emotional issue and he was angry about it. It had to be brought
out to the community and the City Council that if the City wanted the community
to be responsive and property upgraded, they would have to have a response from
the Council to show good faith. The problem would still remain behind the block
wall.
Discussion followed between the Council and Mr. Bird, wherein he (Bird) clarified
the noise was coming from the tow facility consisting of sanding and knocking out
axles. When he called to have it stopped, they were responsive, but only because
the Council hearing was approaching. They were probably more responsive now than
they would be later. He further emphasized that he could not live with the situa-
tion even if it were modified with a block wall with no ingress and egress on the
alley and limited hours. He wanted something on the lot that would add to the
community and he considered the proposed use would be counter-productive relative
to redevelopment efforts. The situation would not improve by allowing Mr. Conrad
to continue his operation, and he could just as well relocate to an industrial area
where his operation would not be a detriment to the surrounding community. He was
aware that the towing operation could continue as reiterated by the Mayor but he
maintained that the three uses combined on a 1.9 acre parcel were not an asset to
the community. Although it was zoned for those uses, he wanted to know when the
City was going to straighten out the problem since the uses would deteriorate the
entire neighborhood.
78-67
.C. ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor explained they could not disallow the present uses and that even though
the original use granted no longer existed, the zoning still existed and zoning
went with the land.
Mr. Bird was aware of the zoning situation but remarked that it was his opinion
the Council had already made up their minds relative to the matter. It was impor-
tant for people to come and speak with the Council because they needed the Council's
support.
Further discussion then followed between Mr. Bird and Councilwoman Kaywood revolving
around Mr. Conrad's responsiveness to the community. Mr. Bird reiterated that the
present responsiveness was a result of the pressure Mr. Conrad was receiving from the
community, as well as through the public hearings. He confirmed for Councilwoman
Kaywood that there was a distinct difference after Mr. Conrad's operation moved in
causing complete chaos. He also stated the Planning Commission had gone into detail
relative to the matter in asking the question why the City should continue to have
obsolete zoning ordinances in downtown Anaheim less than a few miles from the re-
development area. He concluded by stating that as soon as the matter was voted on
and if permission were granted, the neighborhood was going to have a problem on its
hands.
Mrs. Rosaria Kaesler, owner of 107 MacArthur Manor, explained that although she did
not live on MacArthur Manor, her son and daughter-in-law lived there and had invested
a great deal of money in their home. Their house was high enough so that even if an
8-foot fence were installed, it would still be possible to look into the yard and
view the junk. She had viewed the area just today and saw transmissions and cars
sitting on just their wheels. She was interested in making Anaheim a better place
to live and she wanted her son and daughter-in-law to have a better life than they
had at present. Although the situation had improved somewhat, it was only since
the anticipation of the hearing that such improvements occurred. Her daughter-in-law
had told her about the beer cans and bottles they had to pick up, as well as the vile
language that was used so that she was unable to sit in her own back yard. She
wanted to make Anaheim a truly beautiful city and emphasized that such matters should
be taken care of in the right perspective, and it was important for the Council to
listen to the tenants who lived directly across from the business.
Mrs. Charlotte Farmer, 106 MacArthur Manor, read aloud a quote from the booklet "Know
Your City" by the League of Women Voters wherein it described the function of the
Planning Department. "The intent of the ordinances is to insure an attractive,
nuisance-free environment and to preserve property values." The lot across the
street (Conrad's) was unattractive at present and was a nuisance to the environment,
and it was her opinion it would continue to be so. The same cars had been there
for four months, property values were declining, and she would not buy her house
today under the circumstances. She explained how difficult it was for young people
to find good housing and she stressed that her generation had to be considered as
well as the future generation for their children. They had worked hard and invested
thousands of dollars in their homes. Relative to the block wall, she would not
believe it until she saw it. As it was now, the lot was full and she was concerned
that when the lot was overloaded, cars would be parked on public streets.
78-68
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Discussion followed with Mrs. Farmer wherein several questions were posed by
Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilmen Roth and Seymour. Thereupon, Mrs. Farmer
stated they did not have complaints before Mr. Conrad moved in, they did not
mind the boats and had no objections during the two years she had lived in her
home. She walked the area with a petition and within 3 blocks, obtained 100
signatures. She did not have to tell any of those people about the situation
as they were well aware of it. She confirmed the reason she did not believe
the block wall fence would be installed was due to some comments that had been
made and the money that had to be invested even though Councilman Roth pointed
out that Mr. Conrad had no choice but to install the wall. She also reiterated
her concern relative to parking the overflow from the lot onto surrounding streets.
Councilman Seymour asked Mrs. Farmer if she could be sure that overflow parking or
impounding would not take place on Anaheim Boulevard, would she then prefer to see
the existing use continue with the fence around it as is, or to see the additional
use of towing and impounding take place with the block wall around it. In other
words, would she prefer to see conditions as they were when she moved into the
neighborhood, or the block wall as proposed with the additional use.
Mrs. Farmer stated she would prefer to see a used car dealership at the location
without the impound yard.
Mr. Wendell Jones, Minister of the Methodist Church, stated that he concurred with
what their representative previously said, they could live with the block wall
fence provided there was no gate coming onto the alley, but he wanted to add more
testimony to support what the neighbors were saying and the fears expressed. There
was a vast difference between the used car lot and the new use. A great deal of
work was being performed during late hours and there was light intrusion. He lived
on the Church property and stressed there was a substantial difference. He believed
it would be a logical assumption that once the permit was approved, the late hours
would again occur. There was a problem and he was sympathetic with those who lived
directly across the fence from the lot. He was in support of what the neighbors
stated.
In concluding, Mr. Conrad stated that no vehicles would ever be parked on the outside
of the lot and the neighbors would see a marked difference in the condition of the
property. Once given approval, he would improve the property and guarantee to the
neighbors that he would do everything in his power to assist the neighborhood and
work with each one of them. He would install noise barriers and eliminate noise
from the body shop, as well as any noise after 6:00 p.m. and on weekends. Once the
operation was protected, there would be an improvement in the whole area. The reason
he had not yet eliminated the noise was due to the fact that when he first moved
into the location, he was under the misconception that such noise was permitted until
10:00 p.m. He was now willing to stop using any air guns, compressors and the like
and eliminate any type of noise after 6:00 p.m. Trucks would not come in after
10:00 p.m. with the exception of 1 or 2, and calls were seldom received after that
time. Generally employees took the trucks home and dispatch was made directly from
their homes. He was trying to be a good neighbor and would try to eliminate all
problems.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Conrad stated that he did check industrial
areas of the City for a possible location but found only one area in Anaheim by
the Riverside Freeway. However, the cost was prohibitive. The location he now had
was ideal for his AAA business as he was able to travel north and south on Anaheim
Boulevard and was close to the Disneyland and Stadium area. He did not have an
78-69
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
impound yard at the facility he previously had on Ball and West. However, he
did have facilities other than his present location which could be utilized if
a crowding problem arose.
Councilman Seymour commented that Mr. Conrad's investment in a block wall would
be substantial which would lead him to believe that he intented long-term occu-
pancy at the location.
Mr. Conrad confirmed that he planned to spend a long time at the location and as
he became more permanent, he would do everything he could to improve it.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated there was a shortage of reasonable priced housing for
young people and families, and the City was anxious to have these people move back
into the downtown area and rebuild. Enough people had testified as to the problems
that have occurred when the new use moved in so that she would not be able to support
the continuance of the use or granting a permit for it.
Councilman Roth stated he could not approve of the operation as it existed without
some strong stipulations, those being no alley access, ingress or egress, no rear
gates, and the installation of a block wall including extending the 6-foot fence
to 8-feet, which must be completed within 90 days, and no mechanical work other
than minor repairs after 6:00 p.m. daily, including weekends, and no parking of
vehicles outside the fence in the alley on Anaheim Boulevard or side streets.
Councilman Roth continued that considering it was Anaheim Boulevard and it was an
automobile lot, and because of the shortage of areas where that type of operation
could relocate, he maintained it was the only way to utilize the property as it
presently existed.
The Mayor suggested that the stipulations, as mentioned by Councilman Roth, be
imposed as conditions of approval of the conditional use permit and any violation
thereof would be grounds for revocation of the permit.
Relative to time limitations as questioned by Councilwoman Kaywood, Miss Santalahti
stated that on previous occasions the Planning Commission came to the conclusion
that if it was deemed a particular use should be watched, rather than having a yearly
review of the CUP, one or two years would be granted, and then the petitioner would
have to resubmit for another public hearing.
The Mayor reiterated that if the Council was going to favorably consider the CUP
rather than asking for stipulations, conditions be placed on the permit, thus
enabling revocation if violated.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an
environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the require-
ment to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
78-70
City Hall~ Anah~e:im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION: Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution denying Conditional Use
Permit No. 1785.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Seymour first stated that he had known first
hand that Mr. Conrad was a fine public spirited citizen of Anaheim who contributed
to and supported civic social activities in the City for some time. He was also
happy to hear of Mr. Conrad's lending assistance to the Fire Department in on-site
training. He had no doubt that he would be a good neighbor in the way he would
conduct his business. However, he could not support the type of use proposed and
did not see under any circumstance how Mr. Conrad could make a storage and impound
yard compatible with single-family residential uses. He agreed with Councilwoman
Kaywood in that if the City sincerely believed in what was termed neighborhood
preservation, then it was a matter of looking ahead not one or two years, but ten
years, as to where the subject neighborhood was going. He also had to support what
Charlotte Farmer and Keith Bird said relative to housing and he was impressed that
young families were willing to invest into an older neighborhood. The Council had
the responsibility to support them in their endeavors to improve the neighborhood,
thus he would support Councilwoman Kaywood's resolution.
The Mayor did not disagree with what Councilman Seymour said but believed in it;
however, he also believed in the viability of the commercial nature of Anaheim
Boulevard and that the towing service could continue without the impound yard.
The impound yard could be made an acceptable portion of the area by properly levying
stringent conditions on the CUP. As a business on Anaheim Boulevard, he did not
see and could not be convinced that the business could not be properly regulated
as were all the other businesses. Mr. Conrad should be given the opportunity to
conduct his business along with the compulsions of the conditions of the permit to
make it a viable enterprise. He maintained it could be done compatibly as long as
it was restricted. For that reason, he could not support Councilwoman Kaywood's
resolution of denial.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution and failed to carry by the following
vo tm:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott, Roth and Thom
Thereupon, Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-45 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 1785, reversing the findings of the Planning Commission,
with the following additional conditions including Interdepartmental recommendations:
No alley ingress or egress; no rear gates; installation of an 8 foot block wall fence;
present 6-foot fence to be extended to 8 feet; block wall to be completed within 90
days; no mechanical work other than minor repairs; no work after 6:00 p.m. or on
weekends; no power tools to be used; no parking of vehicles outside of the fenced
area including Anaheim Boulevard.
Miss Santalahti interjected that the action would be approval in part, denying the
waiver, but requiring the block wall.
78-71
Cite. Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-45: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1785, IN PART.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kott, Roth and Thom
Kaywood, and Seymour
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-45 duly passed and adopted.
148: LEAGUE OF CITIES - ANAHEIM TO REJOIN AS A VOTING MEMBER: Mrs. Mary Dinndorf,
131 La Paz, President of the Santa Aha Canyon Improvement Association, requested the
Council to reconsider its position regarding membership in the League of Cities,
Orange County Division. She conceded that the dues assessment for Anaheim being
the largest city in Orange County was high. However, the City was again being faced
with the Intercounty Airport Authority's (ICAA) request for funds to study sites
and ICAA and the Regional Airport Authority Committee were bringing their conflict
to the League of Cities meeting soon. They had thus far obtained a resolution from
16 of the County's 26 cities and the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce had also endorsed
them. Therefore, Anaheim must rejoin in order to be able to voice its opposition
to the prospect of an international jet airport being constructed in such close
proximity so as to be detrimental to the environment of the homes in Anaheim Hills
which, she stressed would be an environmental disaster.
Mrs. Dinndorf continued that HACMAC had already received complaints from residents
relative to activities of the Orange County Airport and a monitoring device had
been placed in one of the yards. The visual approach to Orange County was the
Newport Freeway but the instrument approach was Anaheim Hills and planes were flying
4,000 feet directly over their homes. She thereupon urged the Council to rejoin the
League as the cost of dues would be inconsequential in comparison to the millions
that would be spent on law suits. Further, as Secretary of PATCH, she stressed a
full disclosure into ICAA should be made, as their information indicated it was a
scheme by clever promoters to "rip-off" the residents of Anaheim.
Councilman Seymour stated he wholeheartedly supported action not only to do what-
ever was possible to defeat the Chino Hills Airport or proposed scheme, but also
to support the recommendation to rejoin the Orange County League of Cities. He
explained it was Councilwoman Kaywood and himself who from the beginning wanted
to remain a member expressly for that stated purpose. If 16 cities had gone on
record in support, he hoped Anaheim's efforts would not be too late. He thereupon
moved that Anaheim rejoin the League of Cities, Orange County Division, as a voting
member. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated that if there was one issue that would
change his mind relative to rejoining the League, it would be the ICAA Chino Hills
Airport issue.
Mrs. Dinndorf also requested if it was determined that Anaheim should again become
a member, that every effort be made to determine when, where and how the ICAA was
getting its money because PATCH had been trying to find out for seven years without
success.
78-72
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that Anaheim had been put in a most embarassing
position over the past several months relative to the matter and could not vote
on any matters in spite of the fact that she attended every meeting and was deprived
of giving input and a vote due to the stubbornness of the City's leadership. Thus,
she suggested that Anaheim pay their dues for the next six months immediately.
Councilman Roth remained adamant in his stand against paying the dues assessment
whereby such an assessment was subsidizing the smaller cities. Although he was
a supporter of the League, he reiterated the reasons why he would not vote in favor,
one of the main reasons being that to the smaller cities it was not the idea of
paying a minimum of $500 in dues, but the fact that they wanted to bring the larger
cities down to their level.
The Mayor agreed with Councilman Roth, but Chino Hills Airport was one issue he could
not overlook. He considered it critical to be able to participate in a forum that
would defeat the scheme. Thus, he would support the motion.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion, including immediate payment of dues for
six months from the Council Contingency Fund. Council Members Roth and Kott voted
"No". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott explained that he did not consider himself stubborn, but he had
principles and did not believe the dues assessment represented the fair share for
the large cities, plus the fact that Councilman Seymour indicated it might be too
late to do something at this point.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt it was not too late. She also explained that in her tenure
on the Executive Committee SCAG, the Chino Hills Airport matter had been turned down
three times and it was being watched very closely.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (6:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (6:10 P.M.)
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8905 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Jack Collister, Ervin
Engineering, for an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 8905, to establish a
30-lot, RM-4000 zoned subdivision on property located on the east side of Anaheim
Hills Road, south of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, extension of time
to Tentative Tract No. 8905 for one year to expire January 27, 1979, was granted,
as recommended by the City Engineer and Planning Department. MOTION CARRIED.
Later in the meeting, Councilman Seymour noted that the subject tract might be
located immediately adjacent to a tract on which he was the new house sales agent,
and he wanted to know if he could abstain at that point.
City Attorney Hopkins suggested that the previous action be rescinded and another
vote taken to allow Councilman Seymour to abstain.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, the previous motion
granting an extension of time on Tentative Tract No. 8905 was rescinded. MOTION
CARRIED.
78-73
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, an extension of
time to Tentative Tract No. 8905, to expire January 27, 1979, was granted, as
recommended by the City Engineer and Planning Department. Councilman Seymour
abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
169: REQUEST - CONSIDERATION OF PLANS TO WIDEN ORANGEWOOD AVENUE FROM NINTH STREET
TO EUCLID STREET: At the request of Councilwoman Kaywood, City Engineer James
~laddox briefed the Council on his report dated January 6, 1978, recommending that
the City Council sustain their action of December 16, 1975, to widen the north
side of Orangewood Avenue between Eileen Drive and Lida Lane. As stated in the
report, in November 1975, property owners along Orangewood were notified that the
City was planning a proposed project on Orangewood from Euclid Street to Ninth
Street. Subsequently, a meeting was held with them on December 1, 1975 at which
the two maps presently displayed on the Chamber wall were presented. Several
property owners living on the north side between Eileen and Della Lane, indicated
their reluctance in having the street widened on their side. Thus, the Engineering
Department indicated to them at that meeting that they would revise the project and
submit it to the Council with a recommendation to widen only the south side of the
street, and that was how the recommendation was submitted. At the Council meeting
on December 16, 1975, the project was modified to include widening on the north
side. It was supposed or expected that those who would be most affected by the
project would have been in attendance at the Council meeting, but no residents
from the north side attended the meeting. Therefore, they did not notify those
residents after the December 16, 1975 meeting of the change that had taken place
which included widening on the north side. All of the property owners had been
notified of today's meeting by letter and Mr. Maddox was hopeful that they could
come to some resolution of the matter.
Mr. Maddox confirmed for Councilman Kott that the last Council meeting about which
he was speaking was December 16, 1975. At that time, it was determined that those
who had dedicated on the south side would be entitled to the parking which that
provided and by not widening on the north side they would have to deviate striping~
on the street to maintain four lanes. As a result, the people on the south side
would not have the parking. Mr. Maddox again referred to the two displayed maps
indicating alternatives, one showing the curb as it presently existed and the other
showing the curb moved back 8 feet. They had received several telephone calls--one
from Dave Good, indicating he would come to the meeting and protest and also from
Mrs. Knowles, who indicated she would attend because she wanted the project to con-
tinue as rapidly as possible.
Mr. Herbert Selleck, a resident of 2080 Della Lane for 14 years, explained that he
had written a letter, which was submitted to the Council, explaining why they were
reopening the subject and what their principal objections were to the widening of
Orangewood. Their main reason was the increase in the volume of traffic that would
be generated as a result of the widening. Two years prior at the information meeting
about which Mr. Maddox spoke, it was estimated that there were 7,800 cars a day going
past their homes and ultimately that number would approach 20,000. He believed
those estimates would come true if the street was fully widened to two lanes in each
direction. There were a number of residents who had children who must pass along
Orangewood on their way to school and people who would be impacted by the widening
extended beyond Orangewood because it would affect streets that intersected with it.
78-74
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Until recently, those people had no knowledge of what was taking place relative to
the proposed project. He emphasized that their concern was that traffic would be-
come so heavy that life would become dangerous as well as uncomfortable.
Mr. Selleck continued that the reason they delayed so long in bringing the matter
to the Council's attention was due to the fact that they received a letter from
the City Engineer after the information meeting two years before (December 1, 1975)
which stated in plain unequivocal language that a decision had been made not to
widen the street on the north side. They were lulled into a sense of security by
the letter which they trusted. Thus, in the interim when they should have been
opposing the action, they could do nothing. However, between yesterday and today,
they did get 60 signatures of people in the environs of Orangewood who objected to
widening the street. W~at they were asking was for the question of widening the
street at all to be reconsidered, not the question of widening on only the north
side or south side or where parking would be permitted, because they felt it would
be grossly objectionable as the flow of traffic was heavy at present accompanied by
high speed.
In concluding, Mr. Selleck stated when he moved into the area, Orangewood was a
bucolic street, very pleasant and easy to get in and out of his driveway. It now
took 10 minutes to do so at times with only two lanes. He did not believe the
widening would serve any valuable purpose because there were two heavily traveled
streets to the north (Katella) and to the south (Chapman) which could handle the
traffic. To argue that the street should be widened because someday traffic would
be heavier would create a situation which would make the widening of the street
seem to be necessary because if it was widened, traffic would expand accordingly.
Mr. Selleck then read aloud a mailgram submitted by a neighbor, Tenbroeck Davison,
1602 West Orangewood (south side), which he requested be read at the meeting since
he was unable to attend, listing the many reasons leading to his emphatic opposition
to the proposed plan. Both the mailgram and the signatures obtained from area
residents were submitted to the Council and made a part of the record.
Mrs. Ruth Thomas, 208 South Loara (at Orangewood), explained that when they built
their home it was planned in such a way enabling ingress and egress into the rear
of their garage from Orangewood. If Orangewood was widened, they would thus be
backing out into running traffic. She thereupon submitted a photograph showing the
situation as it now existed relative to their driveway and she did not want either
herself or her truck to become a casualty as the result. She concurred with Mr.
Selleck's presentation and saw no need for parking on the north side of Orangewood
as they could all park on adjacent streets. She did not see any reason, however,
to penalize the residents on the south side relative to parking because they needed
that parking. She suggested that it would be a simple matter to post "no parking
on the north side" because only four houses were involved. She was thus hoping
that they could have more time to get a dialogue going wherein they could participate.
As Mr. Selleck stated, they were lulled by the letter they received stating that no
widening would take place on the north side, only to find out that 11 days later,
the decision was reversed. She wanted the matter set for a hearing so affected
residents could express their views.
78-75
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Dick Waelde, 2081 Della Lane (corner of Orangewood), first posed questions to
the City Engineer relative to exactly what the Engineering Department was proposing
to do at present since the surveyors were out. He wanted to know, in pointing to
the maps, which of the two alternatives had been selected.
Mr. Maddox explained that the Council approved the alternative that included widening
on the north side and that widening (north side) was completely within the right-of-
way. The curb was now at 18 feet and it would be moved to 26 feet.
Mr. Waelde first stated he was aware that it was within the existing right-of-way.
However, as Mr. Selleck stated, letters were written and consideration given two
years ago to the property owners on the north side especially, considering that
those on the north side would be greatly hurt by the widening. He further elab-
orated upon his letter dated December 28, 1977, previously submitted to the Council.
Mr. Waelde then submitted a picture showing his home and its location for Council
perusal stressing that his was a different situation in that his front door faced
directly onto Orangewood and it was located 31 feet from the curb. If an additional
8 feet was taken, he maintained it would damage his property and make it dangerous
for his family of five children. They had a large side yard and utilized the property
to a great extent and a great many children from the neighborhood visited them. Mr.
Waelde then explained that there were 70 children who had to cross Orangewood to get
to Stoddard Elementary School. The street was difficult to traverse at present and
the PTA was very concerned about the proposed project and had talked to many people
in the neighborhood as testified by the signatures submitted. Mr. Waelde also referred
to the secondary arterials that were already available in the area, Katella and Chap-
man, only one-half mile to the north and south. If a big project was involved such
as the installation of storm drains from Harbor to Beach, that would present a
different situation. However, to take only a one-half mile at a time and hinder
people's property in so doing was not proper for the City of Anaheim. He urged the
Council to consider the problems involved as outlined in his letter if the proposed
project was initiated.
Mrs. Barbara Selleck, 2080 Della Lane, took issue with the City Engineer's statement
relative to the number of people who attended the public hearing. What he did not
say was that only four north side houses were involved, and five people attended,
representing six residences thus there was a high percentage of representations from
the four homes in the person of Mr. & Mrs. Waelde, Mrs. Allen, Mr. Selleck and her-
self. The Thomas' were not available at that time to attend.
Mrs. Selleck then referred to a letter dated December 5, 1975, from the City Engineer
and read the first sentence of paragraph two--"It has been determined not to widen
the north side of Orangewood Avenue between Eileen Drive and Lida Lane as a part of
this project." Thus, it was made extremely clear to them that there was no need to
have attended the December 16, 1975 meeting at all.
Mrs. Selleck then referred to Mr. Waelde's statement relative to the 70 children
crossing Orangewood to get to school. However, that did not represent the section
all along Orangewood to Harbor but only the section between Della Lane and Euclid
and undoubtedly, a greater amount of children were involved. Two years prior in
the PTA's effort to get a crossing guard or stop sign across Orangewood, they were
told not enough children were involved. As a result however, they did get a cross-
walk, but the City did not deem it necessary to have a crossing guard.
78-76
City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Selleck also pointed out a preliminary project statement dated December 17,
1975, which was released on that date. She considered it significant to point
out that it was not available for information purposes at the December 16, 1975
Council meeting. It contained the figures as previously referred to by Mr. Selleck
of the daily average traffic that existed at that time of 7,800 cars and the pro-
jected after the widening of 20,000 cars daily. She considered it ludicrous that
a residential area was going to be used as a secondary arterial highway. There were
no businesses on the street except at the corner of Orangewood and Euclid and Harbor
and Mountainview. At present, it was a collector street, collecting cars emerging
from finger streets along Orangewood. To her knowledge, there was no plan of
which she was aware to change the zoning in those neighborhoods and there was no
budgeting for five years to do anything with Orangewood, except to take care
of those pieces of property that were a problem presently.
Mr. David Knowles, 1572 West Orangewood (south side), explained that their property
jutted out into Orangewood and if those residents on the north side had a difficult
time backing out, it was even more on the south side. He maintained that one of the
most important aspects of the Anaheim City Council's attempt to widen Orangewood
Avenue was the proposed storm drain because it was very necessary. During the rain
at his property's location, the water filled to the middle of the street. The storm
drain would also aid residents on Orangewood by making driving safer and easier.
As it was, the road was dangerous because it was jagged and serated. They were
aware that they would lose approximately 3200 square feet of their property and
accepted that fact when they purchased their home five years prior, and he believed
the City Council had good reason to widen Orangewood. Whether it needed to be a
four-lane secondary arterial highway or not was debatable and the prospect of
20,000 cars was reprehensible. He reiterated it was dangerous the way it was now
for those living on the south side. Although he could not speak particularly in
favor of widening on the north side, the number of residents involved was small
when considering the entire four-lane improvement. They were also willing to grant
ultimate right-of-way, as well as others, to make Orangewood four lanes in their
area.
Mr. Knowles' prime objection was the slowness with which the entire project was
proceeding. They were told of it two years earlier and nothing had been done since
then and they wanted the Council to take a firm stand on the matter one way or the
other so they would know what they were going to have on their property, how much
property they would lose, etc. They had children that would be attending elementary
school shortly and they wanted safe crosswalks. Ultimately, his wife and himself
wanted to express their opinion that the Council should proceed with the project
and to do so with celerity.
Chaulare Nokes, who resided on the south side of Orangewood and Della Lane, stated
that hers was the telephone pole that was constantly being hit. She thereupon asked
if an EIR had been prepared indicating what would happen to the residential area as
a result of traffic increase. She could not believe that the noise pollution, auto
emissions and lead poisoning would not affect the whole area. At present, it was
difficult to carry on a conversation in her kitchen because of the noise from cars,
thus with more cars the situation would worsen.
78-77
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor interjected that he was certain some type of EIR action had taken place
initially as part of the project.
Mrs. Nokes continued that a new study should be made. She further stated that in
its history, Anaheim had shown little regard for its residential sections. Their's
was a nice residential section and the resultant noise and air pollution would
depreciate the area. She wanted to have a report submitted before any other
decisions were made relative to the project.
For clarification, the Mayor explained the initial action was taken in December of
1975, and there was no question as to whether or not the project could legally be
done. At present, it was merely a matter of whether or not the Council would re-
consider the action.
Mr. Francis Hammatt, 1548 West Orangewood, explained that he was a resident of that
location for 31 years. He then briefed the Council on his near incorporation into
the City of Garden Grove 30 years before and the efforts made by he and his neighbors
which ultimately defeated their incorporation into that city. He then relayed some
of the events that occurred subsequent to the information meeting with the City
Engineer in 1975 in the Council Chamber where particulars were given relative to
the proposed project. When he was told the street would be tied up for approximately
six months and his trucks could not get in and out, he moved his business elsewhere,
and it was now costing him over $1,000 a month to rent space. The final letter
received from the City stated they would only take 10 feet from the south side of
the street, leaving them sitting two and one-half feet above the street with no side-
walks and only a berm. Thus, he was pleased when the City Engineer explained
earlier in the meeting that the Council approved the whole 25 feet on their side
of the street. If the 25 feet was finally taken, the Hammatts would be expected
to give up 5,600 square feet for nothing, except sidewalks and curbs, and the 25 feet
would cut across their front porch and also take two and one-half feet off their
garage. Thus, they would expect compensation accordingly. He was confident the
Council would do the right thing as they viewed it, and as a resident of Anaheim, he
would abide by their decision.
Mr. Sam Thompson, 2117 South Della Lane, asked if sidewalks were included in the
project on the south side of the street. Mr. Maddox explained that the original
proposal to all property owners on the south side was full street improvements
including pavement, curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Relative to Mr. Hammatt, he
referred to a minimum dedication, thus, in that case, they would put in only
temporary A/C sidewalks which consisted of blacktop just as the pavement in the
street.
Mr. Thompson stated he had two children aged 9 and 6, and at this time there was no
safe access to the Stoddard Elementary School since July of 1975 was the last time
they had bus service to the school. He was reluctant to have his children walk to
school with limited access or A/C sidewalks along the area. If the project of
widening Orangewood was to proceed, he requested taking of the full 25 feet and
that the sidewalk be brought up to standard code, thus providing better access to the
school for his and other children. There was an electronic signal at Orangewood and
Ninth which was a better crossing than a marked crosswalk, such crosswalk being totally
unsafe and, for them, totally undesirable.
78-78
_C. ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that Mrs. Selleck called her and stated the Council
had one public hearing and then reversed themselves at another public hearing,
which caused her great concern. In viewing the letters sent out by the City Engineer
(November 19, 1975 and December 5, 1975), she agreed there was confusion. In the
December 5, 1975 letter, there was no question that the department itself had made
the decision not to widen the north side, but in reading further (paragraph 4, first
sentence) it stated, "this project proposal is scheduled to be presented to the
City Council on December 16, 1975; if the City Council approves the project, it
will be submitted to the Orange County Environmental Management Agency for approval
and inclusion in the 1976-77 Arterial Highway Financing Program during January 1976."
So while some confusion existed, it was minimal. Further, the minutes of the
December 16, 1975 meeting indicated that a number of people were present from the
area, but there was no way to tell if the four people involved from the north side
were present or not. She did not feel the Council reversed themselves in any way
because they had only one opportunity to consider the matter and that was at the
meeting of December 16, 1975.
Councilman Seymour disagreed with Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the inference
of the December 5, 1975 letter. If he were an average citizen not familiar with
the way government worked, he would clearly have interpreted it to mean that if
he lived on the north side of Orangewood, he would not be affected by the project.
He would have interpreted the last paragraph to mean if the City Council approved
the project, it would be funded and initiated accordingly. However, the other
paragraphs clearly suggested that a decision was already made and he considered it
a horrible situation that the letter was ever sent out. He did not feel that there
was much the Council could do outside of stopping the project. Even after hearing
the testimony given and realizing that property owners were being affected, his
personal feelings about the project in December of 1975 were the same as today;
he did not like it, but he liked the alternative even less. Thus, he would have
to support the previous position. However, he stressed it was unfortunate to have
those people led to believe otherwise.
Councilman Seymour thereupon moved not to reconsider plans to widen Orangewood
Avenue from Ninth Street to Euclid Street and to proceed with the project as pre-
viously committed. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Waelde stated that in 1975 the Engineering Department
did say that the north side would be dramatically hurt by the project because all
improvements, sidewalks, curbs, etc., were already existing and the Council was
making decisions without knowing the full ramifications. Many people on the south
side were in favor, but some were not. Also, many people on the north side, as well
as others on adjacent streets, were not in favor. It would assist them greatly if
the north side was not widened, and the Engineering Department had once made the
decision not to do so. He contended there were already one and one-half to two
lanes available on the north side and motorists utilized the street as such. Taking
8 feet in addition would make the traffic a lot closer. He stressed it would be of
help if the City did not widen Orangewood on the north side on the four pieces of
property that would be directly affected by such a widening.
The Mayor stated if there was a way to proceed without doing so, he would be amenable;
however, when the matter was previously considered, it was determined there was no
way to preclude widening on the north side.
78-79
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Waelde asked if the matter could be deferred to a later date.
Councilman Seymour explained that he was familiar with the neighborhood, and the
situation caused him no small political concern as he had family and friends who
lived in the neighborhood and knew property owners who signed the petition in oppo-
sition. Politically, he would prefer to defer the matter, but he did not believe
it would be best for the City to do so.
Mrs. Selleck stressed if it was not for that one sentence in the December 5, 1975
letter, they would not have waited two years to speak to the issue but would have
done something about it immediately. She maintained they had thus been denied the
normal process in order to do whatever possible to assure that the Engineering
Department would adhere to what they had said. She asked, therefore, if the Council
was saying that they could not believe what the Engineering Department had stated.
The Mayor stated the Council was saying that the property owners had been lied to.
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected that she was thereupon going to expunge what was
said, because the final decision always was left to the Council. The Council was
not at the meeting of December 1, 1975. The only public hearing took place at the
December 16th Council meeting. They had to presume that all people affected were
present.
The Mayor clarified, as Councilman Seymour had stated, it was unfortunate that the
letter was sent out. The City Engineer did not lie to them just to lie. The harm
done was that they were misled.
Councilman Seymour explained that going back to December 1975, if the testimony
offered today had been offered then, he would not have changed his mind. The
testimony heard today was probably the same as would have been presented in 1975 if
the residents had not been misled. Therefore, if a reconsideration was granted, he
did not know what value that would be other than to lead the affected property owners
to believe the Council would reverse its decision, and he did not want to mislead them
further in any way.
Mrs. Thompson suggested if widening took place on the south side and parking was
granted, they did not need parking on the north side. If a little less property
was taken, they could still get out of their garage.
Councilman Kott stated that an unfortunate and inadvertent error was made by some-
thing that was written, and as a Council, they should stand by and show trust in
what had been stated to the residents and not widen the north side. Therefore, he
could not support the motion although he could support widening on the south side
in accordance with the wishes of those who lived there.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and carried by the following vote
to proceed with the plan adopted in December 1975:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
MOTION CARRIED.
78-80
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Thom, 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 insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator:
a. Claim submitted by State Farm Insurance Claim Office (Geoffrey & Sharon Barnhart,
insured) for vehicle damage purportedly sustained as a result of an accident involving
a city-owned vehicle on or about December 19, 1977.
b. Claim submitted by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Wilma Nelson, insured)
for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of a collision with a city-
owned vehicle on or about December 11, 1977.
c. Claim submitted by Robert J. Sefing for his son, Douglas, for personal injuries
purportedly sustained as a result of an accident with a golf cart at Anaheim Hills
Golf Course on or about December 16, 1977.
d. Claim submitted by Alberta Cron for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of a trip and fall accident on the sidewalk at 145 S. Westchester Drive
on or about August 21, 1977.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 175: Before the PUC, Notice of Removal from Calendar, Application No. 57578
of Southern California Gas Company for Authorization to 1) Increase Rates for Gas
Service to Offset the Costs Associated with 1978 Voluntary Load Reduction Plan,
2) Establish a Conservation Adjustment Account and 3) Implement Major Customer
Incentive Programs.
b. 175: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order on Rehearing, Docket No.
ER76-205 of Southern California Edison Company.
c. 107 & 156: Monthly report for December 1977 - Building Division and Police.
d. 107: Annual Report for 1977 - Building Division.
e. 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of December 28, 1977.
108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES AND DINNER DANCING PLACE PERMITS: The following permits
were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police.
a. Amusement Devices Permit for pinball machines to the Pizza Machine, 2801 Ball
Road. (David E. Gunderson, applicant)
b. Dinner Dancing Place Permit for dancing Sunday through Saturday, from 7:00 P.M.
to 2:00 A.M., at the Mississippi Moonshine Meat and Music Company, 409 West Katella
Avenue. (William I. French, applicant)
MOTION CARRIED.
78-81
City Hall~ Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- January 17~ 1.978~ 1:30 P.M.
173: OPPOSITION TO THE AIRPORT PLANNING EFFORTS OF THE INTER-COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth,
staff was directed to draw up a counter-resolution to be sent to the Orange County
League of Cities opposing the City of Garden Grove Resolution No. 5498-78, supporting
the airport planning efforts of the Inter-County Airport Authority. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS': Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-46 for
adoption as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-46: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Lydia L. Bauman;
Henry G. Lopez, et ux.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-46 duly passed and adopted.
101: ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 22 ANNEXATION: Approximately 264 acres located southwesterly
of Nohl Ranch Road, easterly of the southerly extension of Imperial Highway.
The Mayor stated he removed the subject annexation from the Consent Calendar in
order to consider it separately because he wished to vote "no" on the proposed
annexation.
Mr. Philip Bettencourt, representing Anaheim Hills, Inc., requested to speak to the
matter. He thereupon pointed out the location of the property from a map, noting
that it was well within the historic Sphere of Influence boundary of the City. The
property was also well within established levels of service and utilities were
available on all sides and bonds were already posted. In terms of physical impact,
this was the first on-line use of the City's own Cost Benefit Study model which re-
vealed that the project had positive cash return to the City and even more substantial
return to the Orange Unified School District based on studies they had done on the
property. Because of the low density of 1.61 dwelling units per acre and the high
market value of the homes, he maintained that no other residential project in the
City could stand up to the test; that is, their own independent research and the
City's own model and the information was verified before the Planning Commission.
The Mayor pointed out that the experts who helped prepare the computerization of
the model now indicated it was no longer accurate.
Mr. Bettencourt noted that the model was based on the base market value of homes
that was not relevant to the market area in which they were operating. Therefore,
the tax yield was substantially higher, plus inflation had taken its own toll on
house values. Thus, the models had to be updated, but the results were the same.
The proposed annexation was positive for the City.
78-82
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-47 for adoption
and reiterated his reasons for so doing: (1) the Santa Ana Canyon Task Force had
unanimously approved and recommended to the Council an amendment to the General Plan
as it affected the specific annexation as well as the entire Canyon area, (2) the
Council in March of 1977 approved that General Plan and at that time made a commit-
ment. If the Council was going to change its position, then the General Plan should
be amended or some organized action taken providing stability that people could
rely on so they would know the way it was going to be today and in the reasonable
future. He considered it irresponsible or purely political to oppose an annexation
that was supported by the adoption of an amendment to the General Plan. He did not
understand the Mayor's previous position on the matter of annexations nor his opposi-
tion again today.
The M~yor clarified his action was not irresponsible but definitely political. He
did not oppose annexations per se, but was opposing the timing of the annexations.
The City was far behind in providing essential services to the Hill and Canyon area,
and it was being allowed to catch up in providing those services and funds therefor.
Thus, he would not support annexations until the City was in a position to do so.
Further discussion followed between Mayor Thom and Councilman Seymour relative to
giving specifics of the drop-off in essential City services that had supposedly
occurred since March of 1977. The Mayor stated he was listening to the complaints
of constituents, taxpayers and homeowners.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-47: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIGNATED
ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 22.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
Kott and Thom
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-47 duly passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 9721: Developer, Boulevard Development of Orange; Tract
located on the west side of Fairmont Boulevard, north of Canyon Rim Road, containing
40 RS-HS-22,000 proposed zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Roth , seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the proposed sub-
division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent
with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No.
9721, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated January 10, 1978.
MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3810: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3810 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3810: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-25(4), ML)
78-83
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3810 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3812 THROUGH 3815: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 3812
through 3815, both inclusive, for first reading.
Councilman Seymour stated he would abstain from any discussion and/or voting on
Ordinance Nos. 3812 and 3814 because of a possible potential conflict of interest.
ORDINANCE NO. 3812: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-25, CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 3813: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-29, CG)
ORDINANCE NO. 3814: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(17), RS-HS-22,000,
Tract No. 9524)
ORDINANCE NO. 3815: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-62, RS-HS-22,000)
175: REQUEST METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT TO ELIMINATE SURCHARGE: Councilman
Kott stated a surcharge was still being assessed on water purchases from the MWD
with the rate being approximately $60 per acre foot. He explained that Anaheim
had received a $29,000 rebate in 1977 for purchasing less than 90 percent of
what was purchased in 1976, but that rebate was no longer in effect. It ended
in September, but the penalty was still in effect. Councilman Kott therefore
moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution to be sent to the Metropolitan Water
District informing them that the drought was over and thus they were no longer
entitled to a surcharge (penalty) on water purchases imposed because of the drought.
Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would like to know
what the facts were before voting on the matter.
A vote was taking on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood abstained. MOTION
CARRIED.
119: SUPPORT POSSIBLE MOVE OF THE LOS ANGELES RAMS TO ANAHEIM STADIUM: Councilman
Roth referred to the recent Super Bowl game held in New Orleans which generated
$30 million for that City. Therefore, because of the popularity of professional
football, he moved that the Council direct the PIO and Mr. Liegler to meet and
prepare a resolution to be signed by the Council urging owner, Carroll Rosenbloom,
to move the Rams to Anaheim and indicating therein the Council's wholehearted
support relative to having the Rams move to Anaheim Stadium. Councilman Kott
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
78-84
City .Hal.!~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 17~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Session. (7:35 P.M.)
By general consent, the Council recessed into Executive
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (7:43 P.M.)
112/118: POSSIBLE SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Attorney was authorized to negotiate
for possible settlement of a claim against the City submitted by Dorothy Savage,
as recommended by the City's Claim Administrator. Councilman Kott voted "No".
MOTION CARRIED.
112: APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE SUPERIOR COURT MEMORANDUM OF DECISION (CAMELOT ANAHEIM):
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Attorney was autho-
rized to seek appellate review of the Superior Court Memorandum of Decision in the
case of Joseph G. London doing business as Camelot Anaheim vs City of Anaheim.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Seymour seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 7:45 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK