1978/01/24 78-85
qity Hall~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 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 O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS DIRECTOR: James Ruth
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman Priest
DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Takuji "Tug" Tamaru
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Kimball Saville of St. Michael's Episcopal Church gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman William I. Kott led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, minutes
of the Anaheim City Council meeting of January 3, 1978, were approved subject to
corrections. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood 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. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION~
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $607,657.19, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
175: PURCHASE AND SALE OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY: City Manager William Talley stated
that the Utilities Director was present, on special request, due to the fact that
it was learned there were sources of energy available particularly in the Northwest
section of the country that may become available over the next few months. Because
the amount could be as much as $25,000 to $40,000 a day in savings, he asked that
the Utilities Director explain his request which basically was that the Council, by
motion, authorize him to negotiate and execute, on behalf of the City, agreements
with anyone where he could find power sources available so long as that energy
delivered in Anaheim was less than the cost of equivalent amount of energy purchased
from the Southern California Edison Company.
Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt then briefed the Council on his detailed memorandum
dated January 24, 1978, which first listed his recommendation that he be authorized
to negotiate and execute agreements on behalf of the City with privately, federally,
state and locally owned utilities and agencies located in the States of California,
Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The agree-
ments would cover the purchase and sale of electrical energy for transmission service
78-86
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
to deliver such energy to the Lewis Substation or such other location as may be
required to deliver the energy to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) pro-
vided that the cost to Anaheim of energy delivered would be less than the equiv-
alent amount of energy purchased from Southern California Edison.
Mr. Hoyt elaborated in detail on his four page report which discussed, (1) Avail-
ability Of Energy--outlining and explaining the sources of energy and the cost at
which it was being offered, (2) Availability Of Transmission Services--also outlin-
ing the sources as well as potential problems that could be involved in ultimately
providing unused Department of Water Resources (DWR) capacity to the cities of
Anaheim, Riverside and Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), (3) Potential
Savings--outlining the savings that could be realized by displacing Southern Cali-
fornia Edison energy purchases by BPA energy purchases including dump energy which
could lead to potential daily savings to Anaheim of approximately $40,000. (report
on file in the City Clerk's Office)
Mr. Hoyt concluded by stating that the matter was discussed generally with the
Public Utilities Board and they were in favor of whatever action was necessary to
acquire Northwest energy without the need for further referral back to the Public
Utilities Board for action.
The Mayor asked if Mr. Hoyt had arrived at a cost figure for the junket to the
Pacific Northwest to work out the details of the agreements.
Mr. Hoyt explained that most would be done by telephone with serious negotiations
to take place in two locations--Sacramento at the DWR and the other at Bonneville.
They might also utilize the services of R. W. Beck and Associates who had an office
in Seattle and one of their part-time employees had been manager of the Bonneville
office in Seattle for some years. It was possible that they could ask Beck to
make inquiries in the Northwest on Anaheim's behalf relative to sources of energy
in that area that could be purchased at less cost. If Bonneville recalled the energy,.
which Was a possibility as explained on page 2, paragraph 1 of the subject report,
it could be returned to that area at less cost while still taking advantage of the
Nevada energy coming to the city but avoiding the long transmission path. That was
the reason why all the other states were included in his recommendation. There was
a possibility they could find someone in Montana, Utah or Idaho who would have energy
that the City could take an option on now as a hedge against future recall.
Mr. Hoyt did not' envision travelling about to a great degree. He would undoubtedly
spend some time in Portland and Special Counsel Alan Watts would accompany him to
provide the needed legal assistance in negotiating contracts. The City had nothing
to lose except expenses. However, he viewed the situation as being one of an employee
negotiating and executing contracts without the Council first having seen them. They
would have to place great faith and trust in whoever did so, and he would do his best
for the City.
Mr. Hoyt stated that the potential savings to the City were enormous but on the other
hand the whole situation could come to nothing if problems arose with Pacific Gas
and Electric Company (PG&E)--explained on page 3 of the subject report) or somewhere
else. The opportunities for the kind of savings being discUssed were there if the
transmission was available.
78-87
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott thereupon moved that Mr. Hoyt be given the authority to negotiate
and execute contracts that would save the City approximately $25,000 a day or more
with the Northwest and that those savings realized be passed on to the users. Council-
man Thom seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Seymour stated he endorsed the idea of making
certain the savings would be returned to the rate payers, but asked that Councilman
Kott be more specific as to how that would be accomplished whether on a monthly
basis, every other month, or at the end of the year.
A brief discussion followed relative to the matter at the conclusion of which Mr.
Hoyt stated something could be worked out. However, they did not want to make a
reduction on a monthly basis but preferably quarterly or something similar. Council-
man Kott was amenable to a monthly basis.
Councilman Seymour stated he could support the motion as long as disbursement of the
savings was done in an orderly fashion.
Mr. Hoyt stated if the worst happened and they broke even at the end of a year or so,
they would have a lower cost at one point and if rates were reduced during that time,
they would then have to bring them up over normal for a period of time. What they
preferred to do was to come back to the Council with a program as to what they would
do with the savings.
Councilman Kott agreed to this suggestion which, in effect, was an amendment to his
motion directing the Utilities Director to submit a plan to which the Council would
give final approval as to how the savings would be returned. He also commended Mr.
Hoyt for letting the public know that Edison's rates were now higher than Anaheim's;
and in the same manner the people should know that he was able to effect a savings,
and that for as long as the savings would be in effect, it would be passed on to rate-
payers.
The Mayor stated he understood the motion, as Councilman Kott made it, was to
authorize the Utilities Director to negotiate contracts which would save $25,000 a
day or more, the first criteria being the $25,000 amount, or negotiation was not
to take place.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for further clarification and specifically wanted to
know if the savings were $10,000 a day, did that mean he (Kott) was not interested
in pursuing it further.
The Mayor instead confirmed that was the thrust of the motion.
Mr. Hoyt explained that because it was a matter of putting together a number of
pieces of agreements, the motion then might indicate each one had to save something.
His motion, as recommended, would make his Job simpler with whatever additional con-
ditions the Council would like to place upon it with regard to savings going back
to customers.
Councilman Kott explained that first the potential savings started out at $40,000
a day and then $25,000 which was still acceptable. However, before he could get
involved with attorney's fees of $60 an hour, out-of-pocket expenses, plane fare,
R. W. Beck & Associates, he had to know what the expenditures were going to be
78-88
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
because, if savings were only $5,000 or $10,000 in reality, there may not be
any savings after expenses. As far as he was concerned, (1) either he did not
have enough information to make a decision, or (2) he would hold to $25,000 a
day.
Thereupon, Councilman Seymour withdrew his support for the motion since, even
if savings were only $5,000 a day, it was totally unrealistic to believe that
attendant expenses would be close to that~figure.
Councilman Roth stated that he would support a motion in which he could be assured
by Mr. Hoyt that the taxpayers of the community would realize a savings over the
expenses it would take to capture that savings so as not to support a concept that
gave no reduction in power costs.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would have to vote against the motion as it was
stated because it was difficult to understand and had changed so many times. If
the motion was a "clean" one, it would be easier for Mr. Hoyt to negotiate. She
wanted to have some flexibility built into the motion to be able to accommodate,
if necessary, any variance in savings from day to day.
Mr. Hoyt reiterated that the time and effort expended could result in nothing. He
also could not envision spending more than a few thousand dollars maximum relative
to the negotiations.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Kott and failed to
carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
Further discussion followed between Councilmen Seymour and Kott relative to
expenditures that would be necessary wherein Councilman Kott maintained that al-
though the power could be delivered for less than Edison, it may not be net cost
considering expenses.
Councilman Seymour emphasized that Mr. Hoyt had already stated that expenses would
only be in the order or $3,000 in telephone calls and travel. If there was a po-
tential of $2.5 million in savings, such an investment would be warranted, as well
for a $400,000, ~$200,000 or a $100,000 return. He considered that a good trans-
action.
Mr. Hoyt confirmed that if transmission capacity could be negotiated, there was
no way that costs would be substantial.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Utilities
Director was authorized to negotiate and execute on behlaf of the City of Anaheim
agreements with privately owned, federally owned, state owned and locally owned
utilities and agencies located in the States of California, Nevada, Arizona,
Utah, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Said agreements shall be
for purchase and sale of electrical energy and for transmission service to deliver
such energy to Lewis Substation in Anaheim or such other loc~tion as may be required
to deliver such energy to the Bonneville Power Administration should it~be necessary
to deliver such energy to the Bonneville Power Administration. Councilman Thom ab-
stained, and Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
78-89
C.i.ty Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
125: CITY CONTROLLED DATA PROCESSING SERVICE AND PARTICIPATION IN THE MDS JOINT
POWERS AGREEMENT: Mr. Tug Tamaru, Data Processing Director, explained that his
executive management summary "Assessment of Data Processing Services Provided by
the City of Anaheim" submitted with his memorandum dated January 17, 1978, was
the conclusion of five months of an internal audit assessment of all facets of
the Data Processing operation. He then briefed the Council on the summary, point-
ing out that the cost of data processing in Anaheim, as compared nationally for
comparable cities, was lower at this point in time. Including capital projects,
Anaheim Data Processing was running at approximately .84 percent of the total City
budget, whereas the national average was 1.2 percent (page 6).
Relative to what was occurring nationally in the facilities management area, he
had the opportunity of securing data gathered by the Public Policy Research Organ-
ization at University of California at Irvine, wherein they performed a comprehensive
national study. At that time, 1974-75, there were four counties and cities using
Facilities Management Organizations (FMO) for data processing. The Data Processing
Department took that data and updated two of the FMO services, one county and one
city. It was found that costs to the city were running at 1.7 percent and to the
county, .98 percent, as compared to Anaheim's .84 percent.
Mr. Tamaru continued that one of the reasons why his department was running much
below the national average was because of the uniqueness in that actually nine
cities were sharing the data processing resources with Anaheim which put them in
a position of a Facilities Management Organization. Also, he believed costs could
continue to be lowered by expanding the sharing base with other cities. He was
preparing a three-year budget plan which would be a business-type plan and in
informal discussions with other cities interested in Anaheim's Data Processing
services, there was a possibility of anywhere from $200,000 to $1 million in addi-
tional revenues.
Councilman Seymour stated, as he had in the seminar with department heads when
Mm. Tamaru made a similar report, that he had concerns relative to recommendation~.
C (page 12), investigating the sharing of data processing development. He wanted
it very clear that whatever contract the City entered into regarding data processing
that it would be able to recapture the capital investment required over the life of
the contract. He wanted to preclude any contract that did not show that recapture.
Mr. Tamaru assured Councilman Seymour that point would be covered thoroughly in
his three-year plan.
Councilman Seymour also wanted investigated the coming surge of mini-computers.
If there was a revolution taking place in the computer industry to the degree where
the price of mini-computers dropped drastically and they were capable of doing
the job, he could foresee the City's customers fleeing to the mini-computer,
resulting in an abundance of expensive hardware with no capacity.
Mr. Tamaru stated that as far as MDS cities, the biggest threat to A~aheim was
the smaller cities having gone to mini-computers. However, he maintained that
mistakes woul'~ be made and they would be back. The problem was not in the hard-
ware as much as the software.
78-90
City Ha~l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth commented on the report they had regarding the Data Processing
building, its future and the additional 6ost for insurance and other expenses.
If the Council approved the concept of continuing in-house data processing, he
hoped that Mr. Tamaru had included in his long-range planning the acquisition
of a structure suitable in order to cut some of the insurance costs involved
presently.
Mr. Tamaru stated that consideration would be included in his plan.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, continuation of
the City controlled data processing service and participation in the MDS Joint
Powers Agreement with further efforts to update present methods was approved.
MOTION CARRIED.
123/137/153: RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: City Manager Talley introduced the pro-
posed resolutions and attendant motions as outlined in memorandums dated January 12
and 17, 1978 from the Personnel Director, Garry McRae and Finance Director George
Ferrone, respectively, relative to the creation and implementation of a Risk
Management Program for the City. Mr. A1 Green of Warren, McVeigh and Griffin
and Mr. Ferrone were available to answer questions.
Mr. George Ferrone referred to the December 1977 report by Warren, McVeigh and
Griffin, Risk Management and Employee Benefits Audit, which had been submitted to
the Council. He thereupon briefed the Council on the summary of findings in the
report, stating there was a potential for savings in the 6-digit number range
relative to the City's Risk Management Program, the expenses for which had grown
in a geometric proportion in the last three years. If action was not taken on a
Risk Management Program, the City could look forward to substantial increases in
cost as outlined on page 1 of the report (on file in the City Clerk's Office) es-
calating to $5.5 million in the next two years. Action had to be taken to bring
the situation under control and his recommendation was that the City accept and
move forward with the Risk Management Program.
Discussion then followed between Councilman Seymour and City Manager Talley relative
to whom the Risk Manager would report. Mr. Talley explained that the program would
be established in the Department of Finance and reporting would be directly to Mr.
Ferrone for administrative or ministerial functions. The Risk Manager, however,
would report to the City Manager and work with individual department heads in imple-
menting the actual program.
Councilman Seymour expressed concern that if the Risk Manager reported to Mr. Ferrone,
he would not have .as much impact with the department heads because he would be
below them. Therefore, they may not look upon his recommendations as they otherwise
might if he reported to the City Manager at least during the initial stages of the
program.
Mr. Talley explained that the matter was initially discussed with Mr. Griffin and
if there was any doubt about top management's or Council's commitment to the program,
that possibly locating it in the City Manager's Office would be appropriate. However,
what was planned for next year's budget under the MBO program was to assess all
departments for each element of the program so that department heads would be judged
by the amount of money the programs cost. He would be willing to transfer the pro-
gram into his office if the Risk Manager came to him after two or three months and
78-91
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
indicated he did not have the necessary clout. He did not anticipate that being
the case however. Since the program had a positive substantial management commit-
ment, he considered that locating it as a program under the Director of Finance
would be appropriate with a decentralized administration.
Councilman Seymour did not agree that it was appropriate to initiate the program
in the Department of Finance and he was personally opposed to so doing. He merely
wanted the Risk Manager reporting to the City Manager until the program was under
way.
Additional discussion followed between Councilman Seymour and Mr. Talley wherein
Councilman Seymour reiterated his major concern was the chain of reporting relative
to the Risk Manager. It was acceptable to him to have the four additional positions
reporting directly to the Risk Manager for maximum effectiveness. It was further
clarified that the program would be budgeted in the City Manager's Office rather
than the Department of Finance until the program was in effect and there was a higher
degree of confidence that any difficulties had been worked out. Mr. Talley preferred
to have the Risk Manager report to him from a program standpoint leaving the function
and ministerial activities to the Director of Finance as he was opposed to the con-
cept of adding to his staff. Presently PIO, Intergovernmental Relations, Program
Development and Audit were budgeted in the City Manager's office making it difficult
for him timewise to do his work while at the same time supervising all of the other
activities.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour reiterated that he wanted the
Risk Manager to report directly to the City Manager or Assistant City Manager in
the City Manager's Office. He was not concerned about the location of the additional
four positions. Mr. Talley confirmed that budgetarily, the four positions would be
in the Finance Department and the Risk Manager would report directly to him until
he indicated the Risk Manager would no longer have to do so.
Discussion then followed between the Council and staff relative to certain aspects.
of the program, as well as how it could be ascertained what would be saved by its
implementation.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the report of
Warren, McVeigh and Griffin, Risk Management and Employee Benefits Audit, dated
December 1977 was accepted. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the addition
of the positions of Risk Manager, Safety Administrator and Secretary to the Risk
Management Program was authorized with the provisos that the Risk Manager report
to the City Manager until it was no longer necessary to do so, and a report was
to be submitted to the Council on savings six months after initiation of the program.
MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by ~ouncilwoman Kaywood, the transfer of
salary and fringe benefit costs from the Personnel Department for the Worker's
Compensation Administrator and his Intermediate Typist Clerk, effective March 1,
1978, was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
78-92
.City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ .1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 78R-48 through 78R-50, both inclusive,
for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-48: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-809 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
PROGRAM MANAGERS AND CREATING THE JOB CLASS OF RISK MANAGER.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-49: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-726 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT CLASSES AND CREATING THE JOB CLASSES OF SAFETY
ADMINISTRATOR AND WORKER'S COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATOR.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-50: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH WARREN,
McVEIGH, GRIFFIN & HUNTINGTON, 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 Nos. 78R-48 through 78R-50, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
123: FACILITIES FOR PERALTA CANYON AND PELANCONI PARKS: Upon questioning by
Councilman Roth, Parks, Recreation and the Arts Director James Ruth explained
how the architect was finally recommended relative to the subject project. They
solicited information from other agencies who had park development in the last
couple of years, and letters were subsequently sent out to 15 architects giving
the scope of the project and asking if they were interested in participating.
Seven letters were received in return and then an interview panel was set-up,
which panel narrowed the selection down to three. Thereafter, the actual
physical facilities designed by the architects were inspected and recommenda-
tions were made on that basis, as well as fees that would be charged.
After clarification by staff of certain aspects of the agreements as requested
by Councilman Kott, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-51 for adop-
tion as recommended in memorandum dated January 8, 1978, from Mr. Ruth. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-51: 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 DAN L. ROWLAND AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 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-51 duly passed and adopted.
78-93
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
150: DEVELOPMENT OF BALL DIAMOND AT ROOSEVELT SCHOOL: Councilman Seymour explained
that the East Anaheim Little League requested development of a ball diamond at
Roosevelt School next to Boysen Park. He subsequently asked Mr. Ruth about the
matter, and he (Ruth) thereupon submitted a report which he read aloud recommend-
ing the following course of action, (1) that the scope of the project be reduced
so that labor and material costs would not exceed the $10,000 limit according
to the City Charter, and (2) the following improvements could be made prior to
the beginning of the 1978 Little League season--backstop, irrigation, brick dust
and fencing at a cost of $4,895. Councilman Seymour stated that Mr. Ruth did
not have that amount in his budget, but did have $4,500 for labor costs. He
thereupon moved that an amount not to exceed $5,'000 be appropriated from the
Council Contingency Fund to cover the necessary improvements which would be
utilized in conjunction with the $4,500 already budgeted for labor. Council-
woman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Ruth explained that the subject project had been
considered for several years since the Little League had been utilizing Boysen
Park out of necessity on Sunday nights contrary to League rules. The League
approached the City with a proposal to develop the ball diamond at Roosevelt
School and subsequently his Department met with the School District who approved
of the project. The project would thus be beneficial not only to the East Anaheim
Little League, but also the City because it would open up Boysen Park for other
programs.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
153: AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 77R-805~ PERSONNEL RULE NO. 16~ VACATIONS~ TO
CORRECT AN ERROR: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-52 for adoption
as recommended in memorandum dated January 18, 1978, from the Personnel Director.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-52: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-805, NUNC PRO TUNC, BY CORRECTING SECTION 16.63 OF
PERSONNEL RULE 16. "VACATION." (effective December 9, 1977)
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-52 duly passed and adopted.
123/161: CANYON INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM (P~OJECT NO. 8): (Agreement with
JHK and Associates, engineering services, not to exceed $25,500) Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-53 for adoption as recommended in memorandum
dated January 18, 1978, from the City Engineer who also confirmed that the JHK
proposal was the lowest bid of the six proposals received on the project. Refer
to Resolution Book.
78-94
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-53: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH JHK AND ASSOCIATES FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA TRAFFIC
CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT. (not to exceed $25,500)
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-53 duly passed and adopted.
116: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on
report dated January 17, 1978, relative to the subject program. City staff went
out and attempted to find a source of funding for the Economic Development Pro-
gram (EDP) and subsequently presented the total program to the Blue Ribbon committee
which was established by the City Council. A presentation was made to the committee
on December 9, 1977 and January 9, 1978, (Economic Development presentation attached
to the January 17, 1978 report--on file in the City Clerk's Office) with funding
for the program coming from Manpower dollars plus Community Redevelopment funds
locally. Expenditures for the program were estimated to be $45,000 for the remainder
of the fiscal year and $120,000 for the coming year which was in full accord with
what was anticipated would be the movement by the Federal programs as presented
by the President this week.
Councilman Roth reminded the Council that he and Councilman Seymour were working
with the Blue Ribbon Committee of the Chamber of CommerCe relative to the EDP.
He had met with them several times and the last time, approximately three weeks
prior, the program was presented to the Committee and it was the unanimous opinion
of th& Committee that the proposed program be supported. Since that time, however,
he had further discussion with the Executive Vice President of the Chamber, one
of the past Presidents, and a member of the Board of Directors. Now, they were
not entirely happy with the proposal and they wanted to make changes, some minor,
some major. Thus, he could not support the proposal even though he was part of
that Committee until it was removed from the agenda and sent back to the Chamber
for comments and recommendations from their Executive Board.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the problems now were opposite from those they had
before.
Councilman Roth expl~ained that there was not enough unison in thinking as to what
the Committee really wanted. Thus, he maintained the City should not get involved
until input was received from the Chamber since they were going to provide many
people from the business community to serve on the Board. Therefore, a program
should not be thrust on the business community that they did not want.
In answer to Councilman Kott, Councilman Seymour stated that Councilman Roth had
given an accurate description of what took place in the Blue Ribbon Committee
meeting. He felt that a large majority of the Committee endorsed the program as
it was presented. He had not, however, been informed about the discussions held
with the Executive Vice President, a member of the Board of Directors and one of
the Past Presidents. He was under the impression that the concerns he heard,
78-95
City Hall~.Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
especially from the Past President had been answered. He had discussed those
matters with the Past President, and as late as yesterday afternoon, he talked
with him on the phone, and he seemed to be satisfied with the proposal with some
provisos: (1) that the Blue Ribbon Committee concept be carried forward as a
watchdog on the program, and (2) that the positions being created, Economic
Development Coordinator and Secretary, did not grow into a bureacracy and that
he, too, report to the City Manager initially and, (3) move ahead with a "non-
profit economic corporation". Councilman Seymour personally found those
recommendations to the proposal to be acceptable in his own mind. On the other
hand, he respected Councilman Roth's position and if he felt strongly that the
matter should go back to the Chamber for a couple of weeks, he would join in
that motion and support it.
Councilman Roth stated that the Past Chamber President was in his office at
11:15 a.m. today with a copy of the letter he had sent to Councilman Seymour
and he still made the statement that too many members in the Chamber were dis-
satisfied with the way the program was written, and that it should go back for
additional input.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the proposed Economic
Development Program was referred back to the Executive Committee of the Chamber
of Commerce for additional input and recommendations. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Mr. Talley explained for clarification that the money involved
would be spent regardless and that at present the primary emphasis was to create
government subsidized jobs. It was the thinking in the report that the City would
divert a modest amount of the over $600 million and try to create non-subsidized
jobs. If the City did not spend any of the money, it would go to other CETA par-
ticipants.
Councilman Seymour stated that a negative attitude should not be taken about the
referral back to the Executive Committee of the Chamber. He would not be surprised
if, after their investigation, they would consider the proposal favorably.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was at the first meeting and offered to be
on the Committee, and she again repeated her offer to be an alternate.
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. (3:10 P.M.)
115/161: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON PROPOSED CONVEYANCE
OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CON-
STRUCTION OF A CIVIC CENTER FACILITY: After recess, Chairman Thom called the
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to order, all members being present. (3:10 P.M.)
A joint public hearing was held with the Redevelopment Agency on a proposed con-
veyance of certain real properties located between Anaheim Boulevard and Phila-
delphia Street and the alleys located 145 feet south of Lincoln Avenue and 135
feet north of Broadway, in Redevelopmeqt Project Alpha by the Agency to the City
for the development and construction of a Civic Center facility.
78-96
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, briefed the Agency
and the Council on his report dated January 12, 1978, recommending that the Agency
approve by resolution, (1) the certification of the information contained in the
Environmental Impact Reports on the Civic Center and (2) the Cooperation Agree-
ment finding the proposed facility is of benefit to the Redevelopment Project
and that no other reasonable means of financing is available and authorize the
Chairman and Secretary to execute the Cooperation Agreement on behalf of the Agency.
Mr. Priest continued that the agreement also provided for approval of basic concept
drawings (site plans) which were displayed on the Chamber wall. The plans were
presented to the Redevelopment Commission a week prior for their review. Since
they felt at that point they did not have sufficient time to review them thoroughly,
they adopted the following motion: "The Redevelopment Commission recommends to
the Agency, certifications of the EIR for the Civic Center Project, acceptance of
the Cooperation Agreement and authorizing the Secretary and Chairman's execution
of the agreement, but the Commission does not recommend approval of the Basic Con-
cept Drawings until after further study of the drawings is made by the Commission."
Mr. Priest pointed out that the agreement already provided that the drawings were
approved, thus it was essential that the Agency make some approval of the drawings
because it was important from the standpoint of the law that a finding be made
on a project for which funds were being provided. Mr. Priest further pointed out
relative to the approval of drawings that because the City Council was the lead
agency on the project, he was remiss in not going back to the subordinate~agencies
and getting the necessary consideration to bring it forward to the Agency. Three~ ~
alternatives were available to do so: (1) action could be taken on the drawings and
it was within the Agency's power to proceed with the drawings as part of the agree-
ment, (2) approval of the concept of the City Hall could be made as set forth
in the drawings, and (3) the agreement could be amended and the idea of a city hall
or the general concept could be accepted. Mr. Priest also stated there could be
a fourth alternative and that would be to approve the Basic Concept Drawings allow-
ing fpr the possibility that the Commission could come back with anyminor changes
it saw fit. The Basic Concept Drawings were not a contract document, thus they
could be modified without further formal action. Mr. Priest thereupon recommended
approval of the full agreement including approval of the concept drawings.
Mayor Thom asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the matter either in favor
or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Mayor Thom then~posed a question to staff as to whether or not the Agency would
need a ~all-bac~ position in the event that the proposed Jarvis Amendment was passed
in June and the resultant impact that might have on the flow of funds to the Agency
or to the Council that might be utilized on the project. Thus, the City would be ~
into a project without funds to pay for it and he was concerned over that possibility.
Mr. Priest stated that the Jarvis Amendment was an extremely ambiguous initiative,
lending itself to a variety of interpretations. The funds being discussed covering
the subject project were from bond proceeds, and the money was in the bank. His
interpretation of Jarvis Amendment was, at this point in time, they could continue
servicing those bonds. While the Amendment, if passed, would have an effect on
overall income, Mr. Priest reassured the Council it would not affect the Civic
Center Project.
78-97
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Agency Member Kaywood, seconded by Agency Member Kott, the Basic
Concept Drawings for the Civic Center were approved with the Redevelopment
Commission to continue their review of the drawings and subsequently submit
recommendations. MOTION CARRIED.
Agency Member Kaywood offered Resolution No. ARA78-14 for adoption as recommended
in memorandum dated January 12, 1978 from the Executive Director of Community
Development. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA78-14: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RESPECTING THE CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY TO THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: DETERMINING THAT THE CIVIC
CENTER FACILITY IS OF BENEFIT TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA: APPROVING PAY-
MENT BY THE AGENCY OF THE COST OF THE LAND FOR AND A PORTION OF THE COST OF
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CIVIC CENTER FACILITY: DETERMINING THAT NO OTHER REASON-
ABLE MEANS OF FINANCING IS AVAILABLE TO THE COMMUNITY: MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL
FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR A PROPOSED COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND
THE AGENCY: AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF SAID COOPERATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE AGENCY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA78-14 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-54 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated January 12, 1978, from the Executive Director of Community Develop-
ment. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-54: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RESPECTING THE CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY TO THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: DETERMINING THAT THE CIVIC CENTER
FACILITY IS OF BENEFIT TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA: CONSENTING TO PAYMENT BY
THE AGENCY OF THE COST OF THE LAND FOR AND A PORTION OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION
OF THE CIVIC CENTER FACILITY: DETERMINING THAT NO OTHER REASONABLE MEANS OF
FINANCING IS AVAILABLE TO THE COMMUNITY: AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF A COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE AGENCY.
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-54 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION - ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Agency Member Kaywood
moved to recess into Executive Session at the conclusion of the Council meeting.
Agency Member Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (7:40 P.M.)
78-98
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
107: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilman Seymour, request for permit to move a garage from its present
location within a newly dedicated street to a more suitable location on the
same lot located at 370 South Old Bridge Road was continued to January 31, 1978,
at 3:00 p.m. at the request of the applicant. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1768: Application by Robert W. and
Katherine M. Hugart, to permit private tutoring services on RS-5000 zoned property
located at 1335 South Ashington Lane.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-264, 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. 1768.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Sister Lucille Bernier,
agent for the applicant, and public hearing scheduled this date.
The City Clerk reported that thirty-two letters and two petitions, containing ap-
proximately 109 signatures, in support and a petition, containing twenty-three
signatures, in opposition had been received to 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. Rbnald Rus, 1 City Boulevard, Suite 1120, Orange, stated that he was present
as a proponent for the agent of the applicant, Sister Bernier, and he first wanted
to speak to some items in the Planning Commission resolution. Number 1, under
finding of facts, indicated that the use was an appropriate one under a conditional
use permit, and thus, it was their position that the purpose of the hearing was to
establish what the conditions for the tutoring service use should be. He stated
it was perhaps misleading to say there were 15 students enrolled as tutored students.
The students involved were lacking in sight perceptual development, and they were
instructed on a one-to-one basis with special permission from various public or
private schools. There were never more than 10 students in tutoring sessions at
the residence at any one time and they were spaced out so that at most times instruc-
tion was even more individualized. Thus, once the use was considered and conditions
placed thereon, he questioned why the use should be denied.
Mr. Rus continued that foremost in the findings of fact in the resolution (Number 2)
was concern over traffic congestion created by reason of any tutoring services that
may be going on at Ashington Lane. In discussing the matter with Paul Singer, Traffic
Engineer, a traffic study was not undertaken relative to impact until 15 days after
the Planning Commission meeting. The figures he was going to relay would reveal
that any traffic impact would be absolutely minimal at worst. On December 20, 1977,
in a 24-hour period on Ashington Lane, there were 1,130 average daily trips, whereas
the capacity of the street was 10,000. Therefore, the street was being used at
10 percent of its capacity regardless of whether tutoring was conducted there or not.
78-99
City Hall~, Anaheim~ Californi.a' - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The average flow at peak times was 56 cars per hour, whereas the capacity of the
street at any one time was 1,400 cars. Since there were no more than 10 students
at any one time, even if all of them were to arrive in their own cars, there would
be no impact.
However, most of the students were in a small car pool so that there were approx-
imately four cars at the location at any day at various times. The students
arrived and departed at staggered periods during the day. Sessions were from
9:30 a.m. to approximately 1:30 p.m. to as late as 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon.
Sessions were spaced in this fashion so as to avoid interference with peak use
of the street. Mr. Rus maintained that traffic impact was no reason to deny
the application. If it was the intent of the Council to grant the applicant
her request conditioned on so many cars being there or arriving or departing at
certain times, they would comply.
Relative to the findings that the service would interfere with adjoining land uses
(Number 3) and growth and development of the area, Mr. Rus contended it seemed to
be inconsistent with the fact that it was a proper use for the area. If it was
something that would interfere, then material consideration of the Council should
be that of the signatures appearing on the petition endorsing the applicant since
approximately 95 were residences within a 300-foot radius.
Relative to the finding that the size and shape of the site was not adequate to
develop the proposed use (Number 4), Mr. Rus emphasized they were not asking to
develop the use, but only to maintain the existing tutorial services that had been
and were continuing at the location at the present time. If anything, the intent
was to minimize or to shrink the number of students so that more individualized
effort could be given.
Mr. Rus then spoke to the finding that there was interference with the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the community (Number 5). He submitted if they were
going to consider what the good of the community was in this situation, he would
say the community was made up basically of three parts: (1) the applicant--she
had her own self interest--to be permitted to continue tutorial services which was
in no way financially beneficial to her but more of a giving of herself. (2) There
was the self interest of those who opposed her although he did not know what they
were. (3) The interest of the community as a whole. Those were the three aspects
that should be considered. The City of Anaheim was a community as a whole and as
such, it could be ascertained that it fully endorsed the type of service provided
by Sister Bernier which could not be provided in public or larger private schools.
Thus, Anaheim should be pleased there was someone of Sister Bernier's caliber
undertaking the service she provided.
Mr. Rus stated that there might be some concern that Sister Bernier was not
competent in her instruction. He thereupon submitted to the Council a certified
resume of the activities and background of Sister Bernier confirming that she was
eminently qualified for the work she was doing. He also pointed out that for
the last 10 to 15 years, Sister Bernier had been instructing teacher training,
teaching teachers in the public schools some methods and techniques which she had
developed and included were, the Placentia, Santa Ana, and Anaheim Unified School
Districts.
Councilman Roth first asked Mr. Rus for confirmation if the maximum number of
students involved at any one time was 10 and with ten students, how many vehicles
were inw~lved transporting them.
78-100
City_.?all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~. 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Rus confirmed that the maximum number of 10 was correct, but at times there
could be less than 10 because of the individual instruction provided. Regarding
the number of vehicles involved in transportation, since the Planning Commission
hearing, the maximum number of vehicles, four, were being used because of the rain.
In transporting the students, the arrangement was one of drop-off and pick-up as
parents or the person who drove the student did not stay at the residence. If
any parking was involved, it consisted of waiting for the child to walk to the
vehicle.
Councilman Kott asked if there was any outdoor activity.
Sister Lucille Bernier, C.S.J., 1335 Ashington Lane, stated that since they were
working with hyperactive children, they did have to take them outside but they
did not play in the area. Instead, they were walked to a nearby park and back
and were supervised at all times. They did not play on the driveway, lawn or
sidewalk, but went into the building immediately and then were picked up at the
curb.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Sister Bernier explained that students were
referred to her by physicians, principals, teachers and many times by parents
themselves on a County-wide basis. She never had to look for children, but they
were referred to her, and there was presently a waiting list.
Councilman Seymour asked Sister Bernier to speak to the statement by Mr. Rus that
in the future the number of students would be reduced.
Sister Bernier explained that she had to take some children with her when she
closed her school in Orange that she could not leave. However, as soon as the
child was ready, he was returned to a school of the parents' choice. Some
stay three months, some three years. She had taken on more than she thought she
could handle. She had started with 12 and relative to the number 15, she did
have ~ few private students who came afterward and were not a part of the group.
Therapy had to be done with a group, however, because the attention span of the
children was very short. She expected to be down to approximately 6 or 8 students
because she did not want more than that number at one time. By next September,
she hoped to have two hour blocks instead of longer periods. Some students had
two and one-half periods and she would break up the period by taking them to the
park for exercise or riding in her van. She assured the Council that the children
had not been a menace to anyone in the neighborhood. She stated that by June 1978,
she would be down to 8 students.
Sister Bernier also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that when the children were
picked up, they were supervised until they actually got into the car because they
were not free to stay on the sidewalk or driveway. At arrival time they also
came right into the building and there was someone there to see to it. She also
confirmed that she lived at the residence.
The Mayor stated that since many letters had been received in support, he was
aware that there were people in the Chamber who wished to speak for Sister
Bernier in support of the CUP and also others who wished to speak against. He
reminded those who did wish to speak that it was not necessary for them to read
their letters because they had already been read by the Council. The Mayor there-
upon opened the public hearing.
78-101
.City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The following persons spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 1768:
Mrs. Ann Schwartz, 1324 South Ashington Lane, stated that the word tutor meant
a teacher who gave individual instruction to a student. She personally counted
up to 17 children at one given time accompanied by only three adults. She, there-
fore, believed it was not a tutoring service, but a school subject to attendance
variations both up and down. The inference was that should the permit be dis-
allowed, the children would have to fend for themselves. She was very much in
favor of school programs that assisted children with learning peculiarities, but
there was an allotment on tax bills for the educationally handicapped, and she
found it difficult to believe there was no program in schools to accommodate the
children involved. Allowing that those public programs may be filled to capacity,
there was a private school for educationally handicapped children in Orange, the
area from which a number of the children came. She was confident that with so
many excess classrooms, churches, temples and halls of one type or another, some
arrangements could be made to assist Sister Bernier. She was opposed to the
intrusion and confusion the service could bring into the neighborhood. They
lived in a family residential area and she wanted it to remain as such with any
inconvenience in traffic or otherwise limited as much as possible, and then only
by the people living in that area.
Mrs. Schwartz concluded by stating that she believed there was a shrinkage of
facts relative to the number of cars involved. She personally stood and counted
the cars coming and going and they were arriving from 8:00 to 8:15 a.m. and con-
tinuing past 9:00 a.m. She did not leave her house in the morning until 9:00 or
9:30.
Councilman Roth asked if the students were driven to the residence, dropped off
and the vehicles transporting them left.
Mrs. Schwartz stated that since the Planning Commission meeting, it had been that.
way. When the traffic counter was installed, they left the children down the
street instead of bringing them into the street. Now the vehicles picked the
students up and left, but before the Planning Commission meeting, there was parking
on both sides up and down the streets and she could not get into her driveway.
Also, there were cars parked waiting for the children for 15 to 20 minutes.
Mr. Don Graf, 1340 Ashington Lane, first posted a diagram of the area and explained
that in the original file before the Planning Commission, they included a partial
map showing Ashington Lane and the complicated network of roads within the area.
Mr. Graf then explained the traffic pattern through the area utilized to travel
out to Brookhurst Street to the west and Ball Road to north. There were
approximately 100 homes utilizing the road (Ashington Lane and connecting street
Palais and Scarborough to go in one direction or the other as well as children
going to school. Mr. Graf felt where they lived, the traffic was subject to
more question than what the traffic counter indicated. He also noted that when
he inspected the counter box to see if it was a private or City installation,
the cord to the box was unplugged and he did not know how long it had been that
way. As well, a bicycle could also trip the counter.
Mr. Graf made reference to Mr. Rus' discussion about capacity of the street which
the Engineering Department rated as 1,400 cars per hour, inferring the flow to be
20 plus cars a minute. He pointed to the turn at Palais and Ashington which was
78-102
.City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
"pushed out" to accommodate traffic and he contended it would be difficult to
get 20 cars a minute through that turn. It was not a simple situation of straight
through traffic. Mr. Graf then presented a series of pictures for the Council's
perusal showing various traffic situations on Ashington Lane taken by a resident
in the neighborhood at different times of the day. The pictures illustrated un-
loading at the curb at 1:30 with the car remaining for 2 hours, improper turns
made by various cars on Ashington, double parking and the like.
Mr. Graf then referred to the significant number of letters and petitions received
by the Council in favor. The Council had also received 23 signatures which Mr. Graf
felt compelled to bring in, representing all the residents on Ashington on both sides
and a couple of Palais addresses which included approximately 17 houses. Those were
the people mostly affected because most traffic occurred in front of them and 15 of
those 17 houses were represented. When Mr. Rus indicated that neighbors within 300
feet of the residence endorsed the applicant, he was not certain where they were
because of those in favor of the tutoring, there were only 3 Ashington Lane addresses.
Thus, only 2 homes out of 17 were in favor and 15 were against.
Mr. Graf specifically pointed out a letter dated January 4, 1978, from Mr. Ronald
Rus about which they were very concerned because it commented upon some of the ob-
jections and it finished with a statement, "If, however, you have reasons for oppo-
sition that go outside the facts stated above due to some other personal prejudice,
I suggest it is only fair that you make such prejudice known so that any further
public hearings can be conducted upon full consideration of all factors." They
particularly took a dim view of "some other personal prejudices" because their
concern was traffic on the street and the fact that there were a number of cars
complicating the traffic flow as well as the fact that one conditional use permit
would lead to another even though each was subject to review by the Planning Commis-
sion. Once a precedent was set, it was difficult to control. He believed the
matter to be a neighborhood situation and they were sorry to see it escalate where
legal assistance was brought to bear. Their interests were basically congestion
and commercialization and relative to the interests of the communitY, they be-
lieved the community to be centered right on Ashington Lane, but a number of those
signing the petition were not a part of that community.
Mr. Graf was also concerned over remarks made earlier reflecting on the size of
the activity. Sister Bernier stated she did not know where to put all the children,
she had taken on more than she could handle and she would like to get down to 6 or
8 at one time followed by two hour blocks which had the connotation of a'school.
They, too, felt the need to help handicapped children, but they were worried out loud
about expansion, traffic situation, people coming to the area and not knowing the
situation which involved high-speed traffic at corners and getting themselves at
cross purposes with the traffic. Thus, theirs was also a concern for safety.
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Graf if he would stiil have formidable opposition to
the tutoring service if the applicant were to stipulate to a maximum of 8 children.
Mr. Graf stated the same question arose before the Planning Commission and it
caught the neighbors by surprise. They subsequently turned in a petition signed
by 21 people at that time asking for a Planning Commission meeting in the evening.
Since it was not possible to arrange such a meeting, Sister Bernier was instructed
to make efforts to contact the neighbors individually which she did at a two and
one-half hour meeting at the home of the Grafs' one evening. The question on the
78-103
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
size was discussed and Sister Bernier indicated it was difficult to assign a
particular number because some children were coming for an hour or several
hours, some on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays~ and others on Tuesdays and
Thursdays. In his opinion, even if a number were assigned and it was stipulated
at "no more than" a certain number of students, he believed it could be avoided
and there were ways to get around that level.
Councilman Roth interjected that was not the case and if a condition were placed
upon the conditional use permit stipulating only 8 students and 9 were in atten-
dance, that would be cause for revocation.
Mr. Graf stated it was difficult to define 9 students, and as Sister Bernier
stated earlier, there were 6 to 8 students running in two-hour blocks. Thus,
if every two hours for 5 to 6 hours a day, 6 to 8 students were in attendance,
that would be more of a traffic load than what was occurring at the present.
Councilman Seymour asked Mr. Graf how he would feel about the matter if he could
be assured that the total number of students in a 24-hour period would be 6 to 8.
Mr. Graf stated there would have to be some type of limitation such as that, but
it would be necessary to discuss the matter with the people in the neighborhood.
Mr. Graf stated that for him personally, 4 to 6 students in a 24ohour period
would be a tolerable amount.
Mr. Jerry Kent, 2102 West Palais, facing Ashington Lane, explained that he observed
the traffic going to and leaving Sister Bernier's residence, and he was the one
who took the photos previously presented by Mr. Graf. From approximately 8:30
to 9:30 a.m., cars arrived at the home and smaller cars made a "U-turn" in front
of the house, while larger cars made "U-turns" in front of his home. One car coming
from the opposite direction parked across the street and the child disembarked
there and ran across the street. Mr. Kent's main opposition was mostly to traffic
a~d even if a limit were placed on the number of students that could attend in a
24-hour period as suggested by Councilman Seymour, he was concerned over who was
going to regulate the people so they would not make "U-turns" or double park and
the like. He would not, however, have an objection to a few children being at the
residence.
Mr. Morris Schwartz, 1324 Ashington Lane, stated that he had personally observed
traffic. The street was a race track and people drove into his driveway to back
out. He maintained that another place could be found to locate what he considered
to be a school and not a tutoring service where there was sufficient parking,
necessary insurance and the like because he did not want a school in his neighbor-
hood, and it deprived his guests from parking close to his residence. He contended
it was his right to protect his home and the proponents did not live in his neigh-
borhood. If the request was allowed, chaos would result.
The following persons spoke in favor of granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1768:
Mrs. Betty Spry, 26762 Venado, Mission Viejo, spoke to the issue that Sister Bernier
might be, in any way, a detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens
of the City of Anaheim. She then gave her extensive background in the field of
nursing leading to her expertise in matters of health, safety and general welfare.
78-104
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
She had worked with Sister Bernier for three years and two of her children had
been under Sister Bernier's expert tutorage and guidance. The idea that Sister
Bernier might create cause for concern regarding health, safety and the general
welfare of anyone anywhere was, to her, ludicrous. On the contrary, she main-
tained that Sister Bernier would promote those aspects within a community. Mrs.
Spry then stressed the great service Sister provided to the community. Further,
in answer to Councilman Roth, she emphasized the strict procedures that had been
followed relative to parking at Sister Bernier's Reading Center while it was
operating in Orange. Thus, although she could not speak to the traffic situation
on Ashington Lane because her children were tutored previously in Orange, she knew
that safety was uppermost in Sister Bernier's mind.
Mrs. Marian Patson, 5423 Willowick Circle, explained that she had taught with
Sister Bernier for four years and then relayed her own extensive background in the
field of education; the point being that the quality of the staff that worked with
the Sister was very high. Other points emphasized by Mrs. Patson were: the pupil
teacher ratio was low and the ratio was never increased because Sister Bernier was
not in business to make the profit, but only to teach, and many students did not pay
for services; Sister did not have 17 students at one time with only two or three
teachers because that was not her style of teaching; programs in the public schools
for children with learning disabilities had a long waiting list and those not as
learning handicapped as others had been taken off the list, thus Sister Bernier's
tutoring fullfilled their needs; there were no private schools that charged less than
$350 for such services; personal experiences which she relayed to the Council demon-
strated the strict rules Sister Bernier insisted upon at the school in Orange relative ~
to picking up and dropping off children; the services provided were not detrimental
to the environment and the use Sister was seeking was compatible with City Code;
and most of the people within a 300-foot radius were in favor of the conditional use
permit.
Mrs. Muriel Reed, 6721 Eucalyptus, explained that she had a grandson being tutored
by S~ster Bernier and emphasized it was the only successful alternative after ex-
hausting all avenues to assist in the child's learning disability through City
schools and the private school they were referred to. She wanted the Council to
consider the plight of those who had done their best to find someone to do what
Sister Bernier was doing. She continued that 9 of the 10 times she had driven to
the residence, she was the only moving vehicle on the street and she admitted to
making a "U-turn" in front of the Schwartz's for which she apologized and stipulated
it would not occur again.
In concluding, Mrs. Reed stated that as a citizen of Anaheim and a resident of the
neighborhood, Sister Bernier should receive equal consideration, not as someone
causing a disturbance or a problem. She asked that the Council consider the services
provided and not to be concerned whether 8 or 12 students were involved. She main-
tained it was more important for the number to be 12 than 8, considering the ultimate
benefits, the child being the most important consideration.
Mrs. Irene Ostrokovich, 10522 Frederick Drive, Villa Park, explained first that
they owned several homes in Anaheim. She had a child attending the school and she
personally drove her to the residence and in so doing, did not try to infringe
upon the neighbors' rights or their property, but adhered to the rules and regulations
of the Department of Motor Vehicles. She emphasized that the main issue in the
matter had to be established whether it was the four cars going to the residence or
78-105
Ci~Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
what Sister Bernier did in the privacy of her home. If it was a matter of having
the conditional use permit stipulate exactly what Sister Bernier was to have, for
instance, 8 children, 4 cars, not using the street between certain hours, they would
be happy to abide by those stipulations because their main objective was to help
their children.
In summation, Mr. Rus explained that his formal presentation encompassed the frame-
work of the findings of the Planning Commission and answered their concerns. Although
there were emotional feelings on both sides, he was confident that the Council would
take those into consideration and if conditions were to be imposed, they should be
tailored so as to allow the use to continue within a framework that would be acceptable
to everyone.
Councilman Seymour questioned Mr. Rus as to how many and how often additional people
were coming from the outside to the residence to give teaching assistance since the
testimony given indicated additional teachers were on the premises in the morning
hours.
Mr. Rus deferred to Sister Bernier who stated that there were two Sisters in residence
(herself and another Sister) and an additional assistant came to help between the
hours of 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Sister also clarified a point that had been broached
by Mrs. Schwartz relative to use of the garage only for tutoring and the possibility
of using a garage of one of the proponents, but in their particular neighborhoods.
She stated that not the garage, but the front room was used for instruction, and the
garage was used as a rumpus room.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Seymour asked the City Attorney if there was any way the conditional use
permit could be tied to the person conducting the activity.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that the CUP was tied to the land rather than the
individual, and provided that a new owner met all conditions set forth, they could
come in and provide the same service.
The Mayor explained that he knew of several single-family home areas in the City
where music lessons were given, teaching students to play piano or guitar. He
asked if such lessons required a CUP or Home Occupation Permit.
City Attorney Hopkins believed it would be on a home occupational basis but deferred
to Miss Santalahti for clarification.
Miss Santalahti stated that generally speaking, they did view the potential number
of students an applicant would have and if the number exceeded 5, they would require
a use permit, but 1 or 2 students would be allowed under a Home Occupation Permit.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilman Thom, 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 environ-
mental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to
file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
78-106
.City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-55 for adoption, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 1768, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission but
subject to Interdepartmental recommendations, and as well, that there would be a
maximum number of 8 students for tutoring services by no later than July 1, 1978.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Sister Bernier as to how
long she had lived at the subject residence, whether she had noticed any traffic
problems before the students came into the neighborhood and whether she could ex-
ercise or assert control over the parents relative to the manner in which they
drove on Ashington Lane when dropping off and picking up the children.
Sister Bernier stated she had been living in the residence since August, and she
started tutoring students in the middle of September. There were many vehicles
on the street and the children coming in did not contribute many more. She was
aware of traffic on the street, as well as the cars that were parked thereon, some
of which continually parked on the frontage of her house but did not bother her.
Sister Bernier also confirmed that she believed that the parents of students were
already under control relative to the manner in which they drove on the street.
Councilman Seymour stated that although he could find no fault with the activity
Sister Benier was carrying on, as long as it was disturbing the neighborhood, he
was going to oppose the resolution for approval. Since the CUP could not be
attached to her significant and morally valuable social service, and that, in fact,
some other tutoring operation or service could occupy the premises in the future,
his concern was for the future of the neighborhood. The homes were all on 5,000~
square foot lots, and it was perhaps a mistake for some City Council to have
permitted those small lots with very large homes built thereon. Thus, parking was
a problem throughout that neighborhood, as well as other RS-5000 subdivisions. He
was totally empathetic with the people who had children attending the services
offered, but he contended that the people in attendance today were not unlike people
everywhere and if they felt threatened by a use in their neighborhood, they would
be p~titioning their Council asking for protection. He was also empathetic with
Mrs. Reed in the case of her grandson, but recalled that 4 or 5 months prior when
a question arose relative to the street on which she lived (Eucalyptus) wherein
the people in the neighborhood were concerned with a couple of additional lots
that might be developed there. He reiterated, he had no fault with the use as
it was particularly needed but his conscience had to go with the neighborhood and
what the people therein who had invested a great deal in that neighborhood and
also to assure .that no precedent would be set.
Mayor Thom stated that he would support the resolution although he empathized with
the people in the neighborhood. He was familiar with the neighborhood and every-
where RS-5000 zoning existed, traffic problems also existed with or without home
occupations, and some houses generated more traffic than the pupils being tutored.
However, there was a stronger, overriding and more compelling situation than traffic
problems in the neighborhood; that being the very real service that Sister Bernier
performed for the children utilizing her expertise, Anaheim children and others.
He stressed the social ramifications far outweighed the traffic problems that had
been articulated. Also to be considered was the fact that Sister was a dedicated
teacher who was going to continue to tutor and far more protection would be afforded
to the neighborhood to have that tutoring done under the legal control of the City
which would give insurance to both sides. He would, therefore, prefer to see the
use controlled by a CUP rather than to deny her a permit and cut back her students.
78-107
.C. ity Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
He explained that Sister Bernier could have 5 students or less regardless, because
under those circumstances no permit was necessary. Thus, it was a matter of having
an uncontrolled situation with 5 or less students or a controlled situation with
over 5 students. He preferred the latter.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification as to whether or not a CUP could be
granted specifically to Sister Bernier for a specified length of time for a specified
number of students.
Mr. Hopkins explained that a CUP would be to the owner of the property and a time
limitation could be placed on it, as well as conditions imposed by the Council, but
anyone else who subsequently became the owner could also use the CUP although it
was not likely to happen.
Miss Santalahti explained that the Planning Commission had, on occasion, tied the
permit to an individual although they were told by attorneys there would be no real
legal basis in so doing and it would be questionable in court. In this case, they
did make it clear that their intent was for a particular person at the subject loca-
tion.
City Attorney Hopkins then clarified for Councilman Seymour that if someone else
came along and proposed the exact same type of tutoring service and met all condi-
tions imposed if they became the new owner, they would be permitted to operate in
the same fashion. It would have to be an exact duplication, and he reiterated al-
though it was unlikely to occur, there was a possibility that it could happen.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested to Councilman Roth that in offering the resolution
he place a one year limitation on the CUP to see if the traffic in the neighborhood
would improve.
Councilman Roth did not feel that condition was necessary since a violation of any
of the conditions imposed would subject the CUP to revocation. He maintained that'
traffic was a moot problem, and he was confident that those dropping off or picking
students up would go to extremes to do what was proper. He believed that the situ-
ation was an emotional problem and the matter was out of proportion since 4 or 5
cars in the neighborhood for 2 or 3 minutes would not have a great impact.
A vote was then taken on the resolution offered by Councilman Roth. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-55: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1768.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-55 duly passed and adopted.
78-108
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes. (5:11 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (5:16 P.M.)
173: OPPOSITION TO THE AIRPORT PLANNING EFFORTS OF THE INTER-COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 78R-56 for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-56: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY LEAGUE OF CITIES TO OPPOSE THE AIRPORT PLANNING
EFFORTS OF THE INTER-COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY.
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-56 duly passed and adopted.
178: REQUEST TO THE MWD FOR REMOVAL OF THE WATER CONSERVATION SURCHARGE OF MARCH~
1977: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-57 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-57: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
URGING AND REQUESTING THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT TO REMOVE THE WATER CONSER-
VATION SURCHARGE OF MARCH, 1977.
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-57 duly passed and adopted.
175: SUPPORT OF CONSTRUCTION OF SUNDESERT NUCLEAR PROJECT: Councilman Roth offered
Resolution No. 78R-58 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-58: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
URGING THE STATE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TO
MAKE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE REGARDING THE CONSTRUC-
TION OF THE SUN-DESERT NUCLEAR PLANT.
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-58 duly passed and adopted.
78-109
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
164: REQUEST FOR PLACEMENT OF STORM DRAIN BONDS ON APRIL~ 1978 BALLOT:
Mr. Lowell Birch, 1949 South Manchester, stated that storm drain bonds had
always been on the November ballot which he considered to be the wrong time
of the year because taxpayers were reluctant to pay out a lot of tax money at
that time. He therefore, requested that such bonds be placed on the April ballot
because it was closer to the wet season when people would be more apt to vote on
such matters. He maintained the City needed the bonds to do the job correctly and
efficiently.
Councilman Roth first commented that storm drain bonds were always put on the
ballot with municipal elections in April, although in 1968 they may have been
on the ballot as explained by Mr. Birch. Councilman Roth contended that the
wrong time to place any kind of bond issue on the ballot would be April just a few
days before having to pay Federal and State income tax. Taxpayers at that point
did not want to spend any more money on government or bond issues. Thus, he could
not support the placing the subject bond issues on the forthcoming April ballot.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was time to place the bond issues on the April
ballot.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that the deadline to do so was January 31, 1978, and
if his staff worked night and day it would be possible to do so, but the time was
very short.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she agreed with Mr. Birch and with the amount of
rain which recently occurred and the resultant flooded streets, she felt it would
be an opportune time to place storm drain bonds on the ballot in a simple, easy-
to-understand manner as suggested by Mr. Birch. The last storm drain bond was
on the ballot in November of 1968 and the City had gone piecemeal since then.
Councilman Seymour asked Councilwoman Kaywood in what amount would the bond issue
be-and where would the storm drains be located.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the recommendation from the Public Works Capital
Improvement Committee was a $10 million general bond issue which would be matched
from various state and county funds thus giving $20 million. Locations where the
storm drains were needed were listed in the committee report from which she read.
They would not all be done at once, but the project would be accomplished under a
five-year plan.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved to instruct the City Attorney to draw-up a
ballot measure for storm drain bonds in the amount of $10 million to be placed
on the April 11, 1978 ballot. The motion died for lack of a second.
162/174: SUPPORT OF H.E.R.E. - PRESENTATION BY DEE SPRING: Ms. Spring explained
they (H.E.R.E.) did get an Orange County Justice Council Grant in the amount of
$9,000 of the $130,000 they had applied for since funds were limited by the time
their request was considered. Therefore, they did not need the participation of
five cities as originally planned. However, they now had a sponsoring city, Costa
Mesa, and needed only $500 from Anaheim instead of the $2,000 originally requested.
They needed to have all of their materials in the hands of the Orange County Criminal
Justice Council (OCJC) by January 31, 1978, and Ms. Spring pointed out that she had
a sample resolution with her to be submitted them if the Council approved the $500.
78-110
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JanuarY 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
She believed, however, that presently a letter from the Council would be sufficient
indicating that the resolution was forthcoming because the matter had to get to
the state immediately.
Councilman Seymour asked what services would be performed for the $9,500.
Ms. Spring explained the same services would be performed as before with the
difference being that volunteer help would now be used and only one staff member,
the Clinic Director, would receive a salary of $3,600. They did receive a small
scholarship from Gemco recently and they also applied for a Disneyland scholarship.
She further explained that one ho~line would have to be eliminated because of lack
of funding, but reiterated they intended to provide services just as before, but no
one would be paid. Presently, she did not have a breakdown of what the $500 from
Anaheim would be used for as questioned by Councilwoman Kaywood, because it was
with the budget submitted to the OCCJC. However, they could designate the $500 to
be used in whatever manner Anaheim wished it to be used. The money generally would
pay for hotline service, the Clinic Director's salary, certain amount Of office
supplies, telephone bills, emergency fund for the victim and services to the victim.
Counseling services would continue to be donated as in the past. A copy of the
budget would be submitted to the City management as requested by Councilwoman Kaywood.
Ms. Spring further explained at the request of Councilman Seymour that her organiza-
tion operated out of Placentia. Costa Mesa became their sponsoring City because
of their concern. They were very much in favor of H.E.R.E.'s program and thus decided
to assist them.
Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to allocate $500 from the Council Contingency
Fund to be expended for the H.E.R.E. program at the time the grant is received
from the Orange County Criminal Justice Council and utilized in conformance with
the budget to be submitted by H.E.R.E. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Relative to the requested resolution, Ms. Spring clarified for Councilman Seymour
that relative to the matching funds, Costa Mesa would be giving $500 and Anaheim
$500 with the $9,000 coming from the OCCJC. Thus, the requirement was filled for
matching funds.
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-59 for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-59: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR A GRANT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES
TO THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
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-59 duly passed and adopted.
78-111
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
142: ORDINANCE NO. 3811 RELATING TO MUNICIPAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTROL: Council-
man Kott offered Ordinance No. 3811 for adoption.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth explained that he had not changed his
mind from the prior week when he supported Councilman Kott's attempt to place some
type of control on campaign contributions. However, he wanted to make the follow-
ing recommendations to the Council: that the proposed ordinance be held in abeyance
until after the April 11, 1978 election, thus eliminating the heat and emotions
which ran high during election periods. After the election, the Council could
select a 15-member Charter Review Committee to consider Councilman Kott's proposal
as well as that of TIN-CUP. He was certain that by April there would be many other
proposals by other cities as well as the state. As well, the Charter Review Committee
could review the whole Charter with particular emphasis not only on campaign financing,
but also the possibility of increasing the number of Council persons from 5 to 7,
the method of electing a Mayor and possibly define some of the responsibilities. The
present was not the time to adopt the proposed ordinance.
The Mayor opened the discussion for public input.
Mr. Louis Dexter, 305 North Ranchito, understood that the purpose of the ordinance
was to look and settle some of the problems of special interest groups and manipula-
tion of politics and politicians. Mr. Dexter then relayed some personal history
relative to his attempts to bring about campaign reform and referred to ads he
placed in the Anaheim Bulletin, as well as his research of campaign expenditures,
basically referring to Councilman Kott and his subsequent indictment. In April
of 1976, however, a Charter Review Committee was formed and Mr. Dexter questioned
why, if campaign spending was an issue, the Charter Committee was not asked to
review the matter at that time. Mr. Dexter then referred to and commented upon
Section 1.02.050 of the proposed ordinance, Campaign Contributions--Limitations
in which he considered that the $100 contribution limit per person to a candidate
to be too low, as well as the $250 limit, Section (b) for a ballot measure;
Section 27.2942--Organizational Contributions--Eliminating Organizations from
participating in campaigns which, in his opinion, would make room only for the
wealthy to run for office and Section 1.02.060, Campaign Expenditures--Uncontrolled
by Candidate or Committee, he took issue with that section of the proposed ordinance
and wanted to have it deleted because he believed it would be an infringment on his
rights since it would restrict a practice of his in running advertisements either
approving or disapproving certain candidates.
Before concluding, City Attorney Hopkins clarified for Mr. Dexter that under
Section 27.2942, (e) it did not prohibit, in the case of the Mayor since he was
not running for reelection, the use of his contributions to support other candidates.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz, a team leader for TIN-CUP (Time Is Now--Clean Up
Politics) stated that the proposed ordinance specifically referred to the Board of
Supervisors and influence peddling, but she considered it a good start in the right
direction and some way to get local government and legislative bodies to listen.
She believed there was a need to have some limits on campaign spending because one
of the most objectionable consequences was the fact that there were a number of
qualified people who did not seek elective office because of the exorbitant cost
of financing campaigns. While she did not agree with every section in the ordinance,
she favored its immediate adoption 'without forming more committees to study it.
78-112
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour referred to the fact that Mrs. Dinndorf was an announced
candidate for the City Council and pointed out, as did Mr. Dexter, that even
if the ordinance were adopted, it would permit the Mayor to donate whatever
monies he had in campaign contributions to the candidate of his choice. He
asked Mrs. Dinndorf if she would refuse to accept any contributions from his
committee or a committee controlled by him.
Mrs. Dinndorf stated she would not refuse; however, she would probably place
limitations on such donations because of her own moral integrity. She believed
in principles in politics.
Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, Chairman of CDFC (Citizens Direction Finding
Committee), explained that they had started the movement toward political reform
and part of their study and recommendations led to TIN-CUP and Supervisor. Clark's
proposal. As a citizen of Anaheim, she was pleased that the Council wanted to
consider anything, and she wanted to see the City take the lead in following what
Supervisor Clark had done at the County level. One problem she saw in the proposed
ordinance was the transfer of funds from one committee to another, and she preferred
to see that tightened up. As well, she considered the $100 campaign contribution
limit for Council candidates to be a reasonable one and one which afforded many
people the opportunity to participate in the political arena. She considered the
proposed ordinance to be a positive step, and relative to a Blue Ribbon Committee
to study it further, she emphasized that CDFC was such a committee and some
very competent people studied the matter; thus taxes had already paid for a study
once and there was no need to do it again.
Further discussion followed wherein Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Seymour
posed questions to Mrs. Hall dealing with the proposed ordinance as well as the
CDFC study relative to the right of an individual to arrange a loan to himself
and contribute that to his campaign which had constitutional ramifications, con-
sideration of assessing a certain amount per registered voter for campaigns and
the like.
Mr. Joseph White, 809 West Broadway, stated that if a limit was going to be placed
on contributions, it should be a good one. As Mrs. Hall pointed out, there was no
way to eliminate a person in the United States running for office from spending his
own money or borrowing to do so, and the matter had been considered by the Supreme
Court many times. Mr. White continued that he did not believe the ordinance would
affect the coming election.
Mr. Fred Brown, 1531 Minerva, explained he was appalled by the fact that no reference
had yet been made to the recent drive by a group of citizens in the community to
place an initiative on the ballot and that committee became known as COMBAT. Since
the last time he addressed the Council, that initiative failed to get on the ballot
because of an insufficient amount of signatures, and it was one that the Mayor and
Councilman Kott favored. The three individuals that spoke earlier, Mrs. Dinndorf,
Mrs. Hall, and Mr. White were also representatives of the committee. He questioned
whether that group who seemed to be speaking in favor of limiting campaign contri-
butions were now wanting to make certain that nobody could oppose the initiative
when it would be on the ballot in the future or attempted to be placed on the ballot.
The-only opposition that the group saw in the past was that formed by the entertain-
ment industry which was purported to be putting up large sums of money to stop the
initiative.
78-113
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
In concluding, Mr. Brown questioned the timing of the proposed ordinance and
suggested it would be more appropriate to consider it after the April, 1978
election.
Councilman Kott stated for the audience and the press that he wanted Mr. Brown
and everyone else to know he was an individual and always worked as an individual.
He had never before been associated with any groups such as Mr. Brown, namely
VOTE. The ordinance was his and he did not ask anybody about it. He wanted
that stated for the record. Mr. Brown stated from the audience, that for the
record, he did not believe the statement made by Councilman Kott.
Councilman Kott referred to the fact that Mr. Dexter, also of VOTE, spoke of
special interests and had with him campaign statements that involved the only
people on the Council who did not cater to special interests, such as VOTE. He
then referred to the campaign statements of Councilmen Roth and Seymour and
noted that relative to Councilman Seymour, in excess of 80 percent of the money
involved in his campaign came from developers, contractors, builders and real
estate people with donations ranging from $2,500 down to $500, whereas his (Kott's)
statement showed the vast majority of contributions at $100 or less. He reiterated
he did not have any special interests and his voting record would reflect that.
Relative to the ordinance, Councilman Kott stated it did not do or say anything
more or less than up to $100 to be accepted as a donation. It did limit and cut
off special interest, and that seemed to be the problem as explained in the book
"Political Reform in Orange County" published by the CDFC. Thus, he would delight
in having his fellow Council Members enact the popular grassroots ordinance.
Councilman Seymour stated he would not support the so-called grassroots ordinance
although he conceded that campaign reform was needed, and he found a number of good
sound ideas in the San Diego ordinance from which it was fashioned.
On'the other hand, as he stated a week prior, he believed there were obvious politi'cs
behind the introduction of the ordinance, and it was changing the rules right in
the middle of the game. Further, because the proposal was an ordinance, it was
obviously a politically contrived document and if a true grassroots opinion of
campaign reform was desired, the way to obtain that was through the ballot box.
An ordinance could be changed or amended at any time by the action of three Council
Members. He would be suspect to an ordinance that was not endorsed and voted upon
by the people.
In concluding, Councilman Seymour stated that considering the stage of politics
not only in the County, but the City, there would be little credibility on behalf
of the citizens of Anaheim in an ordinance, right, wrong or indifferent, innocent
or guilty, introduced by a Councilman who was currently under indictment by the
Grand Jury and supported by a Mayor who had announced he would not be running for
reelection, however, with a substantial campaign war chest which he could place
at the disposal of whoever he wished as provided for in the ordinance. Therefore,
although he supported the concept totally and could support Councilman Roth's
suggestion, he considered the introduction of the ordinance at the present time
to be nothing but a political trifle.
78-114
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Discussion followed between Councilmen Seymour and Kott wherein Councilman Seymour
stated he would be amenable to a Charter Amendment, not for the April ballot, but
after he had an opportunity to talk to people in the community to obtain more public
input.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to Section 1.02.033 of the proposed ordinance,
Liquidation of Accounts, and wanted to know if the statement provided that in
liquidating a campaign contribution checking account, that the money could be
turned over to another candidate.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the assumption was correct and if all the bills
of the committee had been paid, the account could be liquidated by paying the
balance to a candidate or a committee for any lawful purpose.
A vote was then taken on the proposed ordinance as offered by Councilman Kott and
failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
Councilman Roth thereupon moved that the proposed ordinance be held in abeyance
until after the April 1978 Municipal Election and subsequently that a Charter
Review Committee of 15 members to consider the proposal, as well as any others
the Council may wish to submit to their charge, be established. MOTION CARRIED.
170: REQUEST - ANAHEIM VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AMENDMENT TO CC&R'S, TRACT
NO. 5438 (GRAMMERCY PARK}: (Continued from November 29, December 13 and 27, 1977)
Mr. David Hansen, attorney for the Anaheim Village Association, 6531 Westminster
Avenue, Westminster, explained that a few months prior the homeowners association
voted by over 75 percent to amend their documents to delete the portion of the
CC&R's which required that a contingency fund be maintained, composed of assessments
of 15'percent over and above other maintenance costs as well as a requirement for
a 100 percent vote of the owners to reduce such contingency. (See minutes of
December 27, 1977) Mr. Hansen then relayed the background resulting in the fore-
going conditions. He also indicated that in 1977 a new tax law was passed stating
that assessments which were put into reserve were no longer taxable, thus giving
an incentive to keep reserves. In addition, there were a number of lenders in-
cluding the federal government, requiring that reserves be maintained before they
would lend on the property. Mr. Hansen stated the real problem was the fact that
a 100 percent vote of the homeowners was required before any of the money could
ever be used, and practically speaking, such a requirement was totally impossible.
Twenty percent of the homeowners in the association were absentee owners and some
of them could not be found; thus, the money in reserves could not be touched. Other-
wise, they would be able to use the money as the Board saw fit and still maintain
some modicum of security as far as maintaining the property. He contended that,
in effect, the Council was saying they did not trust the homeowners to maintain
their property.
Mr. Hansen continued that the pertinent article (XIV) also provided that after 30
years, the interest could be used; 30 years being the period after which the primary
lenders mortgage would expire. However, people were buying units continually, and it
was not a situation where property would be owned at the end of 30 years.
78-115
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hansen concluded that under the circumstances, there was no incentive for
the homeowners to maintain their units other than on a long-term basis.
Councilman Roth asked City Attorney Hopkins if he had reconsidered his previous
recommendation of denial on the matter.
Mr. Hopkins explained that since 1967, it had been the policy and recommendation
of the City Attorney's Office to deny requests to eliminate contingency funds.
The basic purpose of originally setting up the requirement was to make certain
where common area had to be maintained that sufficient funds were set aside and
reserved to guarantee a minimum level of common area maintenance after the
expiration of the 30-year period when the primary lender was no longer a part
of the project. After that, the primary lender would have no economic incentive
to insure the project was maintained at a minimum level. That continued to be
the City Attorney's Office recommendation. Although he appreciated Mr. Hansen's
problem since he had reviewed the matter with him, it was his opinion the change
in tax laws did not make a great difference.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the request of
the Anaheim Village Homeowners Association for an amendment to Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Tract No. 5438 (Grammercy Park) located
on the west side of Chippewa Avenue, north of Crescent Avenue, was denied. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mr. Hansen asked what the feeling would be with regard to a proposal from the
Association modifying the 100 percent vote requirement to 75 percent or some
other figure in order to be able to expend necessary reserve funds.
Mr. Hopkins stated he would want to study such a proposal before making a recom-
mendation, but he did not believe it would change his position.
Th'e Mayor stated the Council would be open to a submission of a written proposal
as articulated by Mr. Hansen.
150: NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY - CULTURE AND ARTS ACTIVITIES: Councilwoman Kaywood
recalled that last March the Foundation for Culture and Arts was charged with
creating an umbrella organization and hiring a Director by September or December
1977, at the very latest. To date, nothing had been done. In September, a report
and a time schedule for completion of certain events was made, and to her knowledge,
none had been met. A brochure that went out from the Culture and Arts Foundation
President and Director in August stated that the Steering Committee made up from
the Board of Directors and representatives from all organizations in the community
was to be ready by September 1, 1977. According to the Foundation's latest minutes,
nothing had been done relative to the umbrella concept.
Thereupon, Councilwoman Kaywood moved that, in order not to deprive the citizens
of Anaheim from cultural benefits any longer, to contract a Needs Assessment Study
by Edmund Carlson for an unbiased evaluation under the direction and auspices of
the original special study committee on cultural arts which would also include
representation from the Foundation. The Redevelopment Commission had voted
to fund $7,500 of that study, and the Parks, Recreation and Arts department held
$2,650 that was donated from various community people. She further moved that a
maximum of $5,000 be expended from the Council Contingency Fund if that much was
78-116
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
needed and she thereupon made out her own personal check for $50 to add to it.
Thus, the amount could be reduced accordingly. She wanted to see the community
move forward and the study take place so that direction would be provided as to
which way to proceed.
Councilman SeymDur stated that as he understood the motion, it was to enter into
a contract with the original recommendation from the ad hoc committee and that
contract be supervised and coordinated with the ad hoc committee, and further,
that a maximum of $5,000 be appropriated from the Council Contingency Fund.
Councilwoman Kaywood confirmed that was correct.
Thereupon, Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Councilman Kott stated it appeared to him that there was enough talent in the
City and enough people interested in culture and the arts who knew of the inherent
problems and the people so that the decision could be made without going to other
people for further studies. People who made such studies did not necessarily come
up with correct answers, and they were not willing to back up their statements.
Being a fiscal conservative, he would vote against the motion.
The Mayor stated that although he had mixed emotions relative to the matter, presently
he would not vote favorably on the motion because the Cultural Arts Foundation now
had a new Chairman, Mr. Bernie Smith, who he felt would breathe a new spirit into
the organization. Thus, he did not want to undertake the Needs Assessment Study
without a careful reconsideration of the matter by the Foundation and other people
supportive of it.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilmen Kott and Thom voted "No".
MOTION CARRIED.
123: 'AWARD OF CONTRACT - CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT: (Account No. 10-4309-12-0000)
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-60 for adoption, awarding a contract
to the low bidder in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer in
his memorandum dated January 16, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-60: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP-
MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND
PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT, W/O PHILADELPHIA STREET, S/O LINCOLN
AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4309-984-12-0000. (Sully-Miller
Contracting Company, $46,969.50)
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-60 duly passed and adopted.
78-117
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
123: REJECTION OF BID - PERALTA CANYON PARK (PHASE II) PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION:
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-61 for adoption, rejecting the only
bid received on the subject project because it was over budget, with the work to
be redesigned by the Parks, Recreation and Arts Department and a portion to be
done by City forces with the remainder to be readvertised at a later date as
recommended in memorandum dated January 18, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-61: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE 12TH DAY OF
JANUARY, 1978, FOR THE PEP, ALTA CANYON PARK (PHASE II) PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION,
ACCOUNT NO. 16-4309-805-18-0000.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~4BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-61 duly passed and adopted.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - MISCELLANEOUS KITCHEN EQUIPMENT FOR BROOKMURST
COMMUNITY CENTER - BID NO. 3350: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by
Councilwoman Kaywood, the low bid of Ace Fixtures on Items 1 and 2 was accepted
and purchase authorized in the amount of $6,201, including tax; the low bid of
Interstate Restaurant on Items 3, 15 and 16 was accepted and purchase authorized
in the amount of $5,605.28, including tax; and the low bid of Dohrmann Company
on Items 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of
$346.87, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum
dated January 18, 1978; and all bids on Items 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19
and 20 were rejected and the Purchasing Agent authorized to purchase the items
o~ the open market. MOTION CARRIED.
161: REQUEST - CONSIDERATION OF LEASING ADDITIONAL PROPERTY FOR PARKING PURPOSES
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HARBOR CENTER: (Elizabeth Schultz, Chairman, Library
Board) On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, request
by Elizabeth Schultz for consideration of leasing additional property located on
Broadway, east of Harbor Boulevard, for parking purposes in conjunction with the
Harbor Center was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED.
108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: The City Clerk announced
that a list of solicitors as requested, had been submitted.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, Application
for Solicitation of Charity Funds submitted by the City of Hope for'solicitation
of funds at shopping centers, supermarkets, banks and other similar commercial
areas for the months of February and March 1978, was approved. Councilman Kott
voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
142: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CHARTER RELATING TO TAX LIMITS: (Request
by Fred W. Brown to address the Council regarding placement of the issue on the
April il, 1978 ballot.) Mr. Fred Brown, 1531 Minerva Avenue, questioned the
Council's motives in placing the subject amendment on the April ballot. The
78-118
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
amendment would hold property taxes to their current level as adjusted by a per-
centage equal to a percentage change in resident population plus a percentage
change (increase) in the California Consumer Price Index. In the event the
percentage changes were discontinued or unavailable, he understood it would be
up to the Council to designate any alternate sources to adjust the tax limit
which, he presumed, would be up. In the event an undefined emergency occurred
constituting a danger to the public health, safety and welfare, the Council could
approve an increase in the tax levied. He personally failed to see any major
changes in the amendment from the original Charter Section 1207. Although he
applauded the efforts to hold the line on property taxes, he considered the timing
to be wrong since in June of 1978, another statewide initiative would be on the
ballot which could seriously affect the City amendment and its impact on the
community. The Jarvis-Gann Initiative could bring about the emergency situation
referred to which could prompt the Council to impose higher property taxes to
meet additional services needed in the City. Although it may be that such a
situation would never occur and the Council would exhaust every other avenue
before increasing property taxes, if all alternatives were exhausted, 'it was
possible that a municipal tax such as a municipal sales tax could be levied to
offset costs that would be incurred. In order to avoid any discriminatory
taxes to offset lost revenues which could result from the Jarvis Initiative if
passed, superseding the Anaheim amendment he urged the Council to consider
postponing the amendment to the November ballot. He maintained it would be
in the best interest of the community to wait and see if the statewide initiative
would be passed or denied by the voters. The amount of tax dollars that would
be spent to put the City's initiative on the April ballot could be wasted if
it was superseded by the Jarvis Initiative.
Discussion followed between Councilman Seymour and Mr. Brown relative to some
of the ramifications of the City amendment, as well as the possible effects,
should it be superseded by the state initiative.
Thereafter, Councilman Seymour explained that he had introduced his amendment
last June and led the charge to reduce the tax rate in 1976 and 1977 and his
reasons for wanting it on the April ballot were two fold: (1) to place a limit
on property taxes and (2) by being on the April ballot, it would give the voters
of Anaheim an opportunity to be bell wether of the State of California. He
would rather act and have people of Anaheim speak and show leadership throughout
the state. He did not want to go through another budget session with the possi-
bility of three.politicians sitting on the Council taking one last good "shot"
at the property tax rate and then have it go to the voters in November. As well,
if Anaheim voters wanted to vote for the Jarvis Initiative, they could do so but
if it failed, he would not count on an amendment being placed on the ballot in
November.
Councilman Thom first moved that the City's tax amendment be removed from the
Ballot, seconded by Councilman Kott, but thereafter offered a resolution rescinding
the previous resolution which placed the measure on the April ballot.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth, although he agreed that the $5,400
necessary to put the amendment on the ballot would be lost in the event the
Jarvis-Gann Initiative passed, he would not change his previous position in
supporting the tax limit proposition at this time.
78-119
Cit~, Ha.ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was taken on the proposed resolution offered by Councilman Thom and failed
to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
REQUEST FOR REHEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1785: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, a request for a rehearing on Conditional Use
Permit No. 1785, property located at 801 S. Anaheim Boulevard, was approved. MOTION
CARRIED.
103: ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 22: Reconsideration at a public hearing of
Council action taken on Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 22 was submitted.
The Mayor stated that as he advised the Council in his memorandum dated January 23,
1978, he had been approached by some 18 plus people to reconsider Anaheim Hills
Annexation No. 22, and their request was that it be set for a public hearing. The
main thrust of his appeal therefore was on behalf of the thousands of residents in
the Hill and Canyon area that a public hearing be set in order to reconsider Council
action on Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 22.
Thereupon, Councilman Kott moved that a rehearing be held on that annexation. Council-
man Thom 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
Councilman Seymour requested to speak to the matter, stating that in his opinion
the Mayor's stand on the matter was nothing but petty politics. He reminded him
(Thom) that he voted favorably last March on the General Plan Amendment (GPA) that
specifically took the subject acreage and reduced its density from 5 units to the.
a~re to 1.61 units to the acre. As well, a number of the people whose names were
attached to the Mayor's memo also voted favorably to that GPA and one of the people,
Mr. John Rau, provided the Task Force and the Council with a Cost/Benefit Model
Study. That same Cost/Benefit Model done by Rau, paid for by tax dollars, revealed
that Annexation would bring about a positive flow of tax dollars and therefore the
City's services would not be jeopardized but enhanced, and the same study showed
an ultimate positive impact on the City. Further, the annexation granted no
rights of development whatsoever because the developer (Anaheim Hills) would
still have to approach the Planning Commission, go through public hearings and
the City Council to get tentative and final tract maps approved.
Councilman Seymour continued that he felt compelled to place on the record what
in his opinion was really happening--that the Mayor and Councilman Kott had chosen
to play their political games with the subject of annexations as they had done in
the past. He maintained they would rather politically and privately take a "pot
shot" at annexations to the City which they both agreed to in March, yet they refused
to come forward and offer any other specific plan under which growth could take
place. He was confident that it could take place in an orderly fashion.
Discussion followed between Councilmen Seymour and Kott wherein Councilman Seymour
urged Councilman Kott to indicate what he wanted relative to a specific alternative.
He believed it was important so that (1) the land owners could understand the rules
78-120
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24z 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
of the game, (2) the people in the area could also understand the rules and,
(3) so that there could be some consistency on the Council in their decision
making. Councilman Kott wanted to see a catchup period with input from staff
as to how long that might take. It was not a matter of anti-annexation, but one
of timing, and proceeding only when the City could afford to do so.
Councilman Seymour questioned Councilman Kott relative to the study prepared by
John Rau and approved by the Council as to whether or not he believed it to be
erroneous on the annexation in question. Councilman Kott could not answer specif-
ically as to its validity. Ail he knew was what he had heard.
Councilman Seymour emphasized he would not mind considering some changes but the
effort was a disjointed one and he was interested in an organized effort through
the various pertinent bodies; the Mayor interjected that those bodies were bypassed.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz, explained that she had talked to John Rau the day
before and he had run another Cost/Benefit Study with Joel Fick, Associate Planner,
on the subject development. He subsequently called her and stated the new fiscal
impact model study that he had run on the 264-acre annexation would show a cost to
the City of $3 million, but she did not have that in writing. That information was
received only through her conversation with Mr. Rau.
The Mayor interjected the point he was getting at was in listening to Mrs. Dinndorf
and other people on the list, they believed the annexation circumvented the normal
channels it should have taken.
Mrs. Dinndorf clarified that it did come up in a pink booklet and at HACMAC they
neglected to interpret the fact that part of the land was County territory and
would be annexed. They did disagree with the density at that time. As well,
there were quite a few other things to consider.
Councilman Seymour questioned Mrs. Dinndorf relative to the meeting of the Task
Force on the matter wherein he stated no confusion existed. Mrs. Dinndorf stated
she did not remember the particular issue and she could not recall whether she
voted yes or no. However, if the record revealed she voted yes, she would
agree with Councilman Seymour relative to her having voted on the matter.
Councilman Seymour emphasized that was the major effort of the Task Force and he
could not believe that Mrs. Dinndorf did not recall how she voted on such a major
issue.
Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, recalled that the Annexation was discussed at
the Task Force and she remembered asking if it was in the City. The answer was
no, but that it would be annexed and the vote was still for it which could be borne
out by the minutes.
The Mayor stated what the people were saying was that they had new information,
new statistics, and a new request, and they wanted a standard consideration of
courtesy such as the Council afforded most people.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would like a notation made that in any future
studies, Mr. John Rau not be hired inasmuch as his results were not dependable.
78-121
~.ty Hall.~ .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour stated that before any such action was taken, in all fairness,
the new study should be viewed to ascertain why it had changed. He was not will-
ing to disregard Mr. Rau's study on the basis of a telephone call.
The Mayor thereupon reiterated that the matter should then be set for a public
hearing for reconsideration as requested.
Councilman Seymour answered that until there were full-blown public hearings,
HACMAC, Planning Commission and study groups recommending a change in that General
Plan, he was going to vote that General Plan.
After further discussion between the Mayor and Councilman Seymour, the Mayor re-
quested that a copy of the transcript of the matter be furnished to the City Clerk
at no cost by the court reporter in attendance in the Chamber.
Mr. Bettencourt explained that he had stated previously that Anaheim Hills would
provide the transcript.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman
Kaywood, 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 claim was denied and referred
to the City's self-insurance administrator:
Claim submitted by Mrs. Helen Lauff for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of a fall caused by a raised and broken slab in the sidewalk at Vermont
and Claudina Avenue on or about November 10, 1977.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 102: Orange County Vector Control District - Minutes of December 15, 1977.
b. 109: State Board of Equalization - Annual Report for 1976/77.
c. 117: Monthly report for December 1977 - City Treasurer.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 78R-62
through 78R-67, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-62: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Las Tiendas de
Yorba, et al.; Erman C. Christofferson, et ux.; Standard Industries, Inc.; L. W.
Howard, et al.; Dart Industries, Inc.; Sam T. Sambrano; Angel G. Mata, et ux.;
Homer H. Wallace, et ux.; Samuel C. De Leese, et ux.; Lynda L. Wehn; Marvin H.
Leonhart, et ux.; Nick Santi, et ux.; Anna Matouk, et al.)
78-122
,City Hall~ ,An. aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
167: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-63: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC
SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING MODIFICATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF BROADWAY AND
EUCLID STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-4309-713-16-0263;
APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened February 16, 1978, 2:00 P.M.)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-64: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: BROOKHURST
COMMUNITY CENTER LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 16-4309-812-18-0000; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS,
AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION
OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.;
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED
PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened February 16, 1978,
2:00 P.M.)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-65: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PERALTA
CANYON PARK IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-4309-805-18-0000;
APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened February 16, 1978, 2:00 P.M.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-66: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: EUCLID STREET
STREET IMPROVEMENT, N/O LINCOLN AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
12-4309-708-16-0000; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.;
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING
SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened February 23,
1978, 2:00 P.M.)
165: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-67: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: ROYAL OAK -
SPRING HILL DRIVE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
12-4309-706-16-0000; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.;
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING
SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened February 23,
1978, 2:00 P.M.)
78-123
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS:~ None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-62 through 78R-67, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held January 26, 1978, pertaining to the following
applications were submitted for City Council information.
The C~ty Clerk noted that the 22-day appeal period would expire January 26, 1978,
at 5:00 p.m.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-27: Submitted by Marcia Singer, Arthur A. and
Loretta S. UJiye, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 and CL to RM-1200 on
property located on the east side of Dale Street, south of Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-1, granted Reclassi-
fication No. 77-78-27 and granted negative declaration status.
2. VARIANCE NO. 2984: Submitted by Marie R. White, to permit additional sign
area to an existing free-standing sign with code waiver of maximum sign area on
ML zoned property located at 886 South West Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-2, granted Variance
No. 2984 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1790: Submitted by Collins Limited Partnership,
td permit an administrative office, activity and bingo facility on ML zoned
property located at 1514 West Broadway.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-3 denied Conditional
Use Permit No. 1790 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1791: Submitted by the Rustic Motel, to permit a
recreational vehicle facility in conjunction with an existing motel on RS-A-43,000
zoned property located at 916 South Beach Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-4 denied Conditional
Use Permit No. 1791 and granted negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1792: Submitted by Euclid-Orangewood Investment
Company, to permit on-sale beer in a proposed billiard center on CL zoned property
located at 2060 South Euclid Street, Suites C & D.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-5 denied Conditional
Use Permit No. 1792 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
78-124
City Ha~i..~..6naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning
Commission became final.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1794: Submitted by Allen A. and Hilda J. Hendry, to
permit a fence contractor's storage yard on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located
at 3361 East Miraloma Avenue with certain code waivers.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, review of the
Planning Commission's action on the subject conditional use permit, as requested
by Councilman Seymour, was approved.
MOTION CARRIED.
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION: Application for a building permit to consist of
rehabilitation of existing building and addition to a building on property located
at 929 and 1001 East Lincoln Avenue within the proposed right-of-way of realigned
Lincoln Avenue.
Concurrence with the findings of the Redevelopment Agency Executive Director that
the subject building permit not be approved by the City Planning Commission.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, the subject building
permit was denied as recommended. Councilman Roth abstained due to the fact that
the subject property was directly across the street from his office. MOTION
CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1063 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by C. M. McNees,
requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1063 to establish
a hall for variety shows, lectures, meetings, dances, etc. with on-sale liquor
on property located at 1721 South Manchester Avenue.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, extension of time
to th~ subject conditional use permit was approved to expire October 7, 1978.
MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 10013: Developer, Charles Gorman of Irvine; tract
located on the east side of Olive Street, south of Clifton Avenue, containing a
56-unit, one-lot subdivision on RM-1200 zoned property.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the parking was adequate for today's parking standards
for condominiums since the subject property was a condominium conversion, and also
if there was sufficient recreation area.
Mr. Charles Gorman, 17755 Skypark Circle, Irvine, explained that the property was
approximately 10 years old and that it did meet today's standards for parking and
likewise it qualified in all respects.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood relative to density, Miss Santalahti stated that
the project must be 10.98 units per net acre.
Mr. Gorman assured Councilwoman Kaywood that that was the case.
78-125
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, 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.
10013, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated January 17,
1978. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3812: (corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway)
Councilman Seymour stated he was abstaining due to the fact that he leased
office space at the subject intersection.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3812 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
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)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3812 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3813: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3813 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3813: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-29, CG)
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. 3813 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO.. 3814: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3814 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
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)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kmywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3814 duly passed and adopted.
78-126
City Hall~ Anaheim~ .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ !978~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3815: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3815 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
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)
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. 3815 duly passed and adopted.
108/130/142: ORDINANCE NO. 3816: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3816
for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3816: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION
3.04.135 TO TITLE 3, CHAPTER 3.04 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
BUSINESS LICENSES.
ORDINANCE NO. 3817: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3817 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3817: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER
14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION .130 AND
REPEALING THE EXISTING SUBSECTIONS .130, .180, .420, .730 AND .830, RELATING
TO PARKING. (no parking along certain portions of La Palma Avenue)
ORDINANCE NOS. 3818 THROUGH 3822: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance Nos. 3818
through 3822, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3818: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-59, RM-1200)
ORDINANCE NO. 3819: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-12, RM-1200)
ORDINANCE NO. 3820: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-20, RM-4000)
ORDINANCE NO. 3821: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-50(3), RS-HS-10,000)
ORDINANCE NO. 3822: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
k~E ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (62-63-41(3), CL)
173: BUS SHELTERS: Councilwoman Kaywood directed staff to submit a report relative
to the pilot project on bus shelters for the City, wherein previously the Council
authorized staff to proceed with such an evaluation with companies interested in
so doing.
78-127
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
119: COMMENDATION OF POLICE OFFICERS AND BUS DRIVER IN DISNEYLAND BUS HIJACKING
INCIDENT: Councilman Seymour recalled that on Wednesday, January 18, 1978, an
Airport Service limousine was hijacked and the driver and 11 passengers were
taken at gunpoint to a remote part of the City. By the next day, however, the
gunmen were apprehended and the hostages were all safe. Councilman Seymour
recommended that the Council publicly commend the police officers involved, as
well as the driver of the Airport Service limousine who helped avert a tragedy
from occurring.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, public commenda-
tion of the police officers and bus driver involved in the January 18, 1978,
hijacking of an Airport Service limousine was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Kott moved to adjourn. Councilman Thom seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 7:40 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK