1978/02/07 78-152
~ity ~all, .~Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 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
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae
CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox
POLICE SERGEANT: Robert Schroeder
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Phillip Schwartze
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Larry Welton of the West Anaheim United Methodist Church
gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
MOMENT OF SILENCE: Mayor Thom requested that a moment of silence be observed in
memory of a long-time, civic-minded Anaheim resident, Mr. Bill Payne, recently
deceased, who had appeared before the Council on numerous occasions.
PRESENTATION: Mr. Gordon Jones, 421 West Alberta, presented to the Mayor a check
for $1,500, representing the fourth payment by the Anaheim East Rotary Club for a
bus purchase, for the Parks and Recreation Department for use by paraplegic children.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated, on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Department, that
t~eir theraputic program was outstanding and in a great way due to the availability
of the bus.
RESOLUTION: A resolution supporting the move of the Los Angeles Rams to Anaheim
Stadium was unanimously authorized by the Anaheim City Council and was directed to
be mailed to Rams owner, Mr. Carroll Rosenbloom.
RESOLUTION: A resolution supporting the E1 Camino train running through the Counties
of San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles, commencing February 14, 1978, unanimously autho-
rized by the City Council was presented to Supervisor Ralph Clark for transmittal to
Supervisor Baxter Ward of Los Angeles.
Supervisor Clark accepted the resolution and also relayed the background history
leading to the fruition of the E1 Camino Train run geared to carry commuters in
their everyday needs mainly in conjunction with their work programs. The inaugural
run on February 14, 1978, would be the start of a six-month trial period for the
train running between Los Angeles and San Diego. He indicated Anaheim's support
of the train was timely since he, as well as the City, had been pressing for a
stop at Anaheim Stadium and the resolution would be of additional assistance in
so doing.
MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred for one week.
78-153
City Hall.; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,399,434.42, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
173: PRESENTATION - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT REGARDING INTRA-COMMUNITY
SERVICE PROGRAM: Mr. Phil Schwartze, Assistant Director for Planning, stated that
City staff had been working closely with the OCTD in the development of transporta-
tion facilities in the City, and Supervisor Clark was present to make a presentation
relative to the matter which would be followed by a brief presentation by Bob Nartwig,
Manager of Planning for the OCTD.
Supervisor Ralph Clark, Chairman of the OCTD, briefed the Council on actions that
had been approved by the District, some of which were of vital importance to the
entire Anaheim area. First, they had studied, for some time, the need for expansion
of community service which started under a Federal grant in the City of La Habra
with Dial-A-Ride. Subsequently the program expanded into other areas as depicted
from a chart which he presented, containing overlays indicating various routes, upon
which he elaborated. He explained that Anaheim had always been considered a prime
city, along with Santa Ana, for expanded service when equipment became available
and when the situation could be addressed fully. Thus, last Fall they did adopt a
program based upon the criteria presented which indicated a need for. transportation
in Anaheim. They also defined areas where the poor and elderly were located, shop-
ping centers, and where barriers existed. Such barriers being Disneyland, flood
control channels, freeways and the like fragmenting the City. Further, it was
ascertained that Anaheim ranked second only to Santa Ana relative to the need for.
expanded service. Since Santa Ana was going to wait until the coming year because'
the City indicated that larger vehicles would better serve their City, Anaheim was
now first for utilization of existing OCTD equipment. Therefore, they were ready
to finalize an implementation schedule which would be dependent upon-availability
of the necessary vehicles, as well as budgetary constraints, but the schedule was
well enough established to be able to officially state that service would be
available in Anaheim in September of 1978.
Supervisor Clark continued that the service would be a combination of a community
fixed route such as that in Buena Park and Westminister and demand responsive service
such as that in Orange and La }{abra. He explained tha the highest occupancy of the
vehicles was during peak hours. Consequently, if they used the additional 22 Vehicles
in conjunction with their regular established routes, which routes would not be
diminished or altered, they would be distributed so as to accommodate transportation
needs between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. During .those hours, a community fixed route
traversing certain streets would be utilized and the same would be used between the
hours of 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., however, the
service would change to a complete demand responsive Dial-A-Ride system. During that
time, mainly the elderly and handicapped would be utilizing the service. Supervisor
Clark stressed the importance of the program's- ultimate success since it would then
be used for development of community services throughout the County. He explained
that because of the layout of Anaheim, one system could not serve the entire City
78-154
.City. Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
specifically because of the unique characteristics of the Anaheim Hills area.
That area would have no fixed routes, but would be strictly Dial-A-Ride demand
responsive service.
In concluding, Supervisor Clark stated the OCTD would be very responsive to citizen
input and asked the Council to cooperate with them in every way as in the past.
Mr. Bob Hartwig, Manager of Planning for OCTD, elaborated on the schedule and how
his staff would be working out the technical aspects of the program. He stressed
that one of the 'key points was that the program was a community service to be
tailored to serve the people for which it was intended. This was indicated by
their willingness to speak to various organizations and groups, as well as holding
a series of public meetings in order to solicit input. Mr. Hartwig then explained
the successive overlay chart referred to earlier by Supervisor Clark, which chart
enabled them to establish a preliminary assessment of the demand and defined where
the routes should be located and subsequently those routes would be refined in the
planned series of public meetings. Thus, by mid April, they would be able to return
to the OCTD Board and ask them to approve their request for a proposal to bring a
contractor on board to operate the service. During May and June, the Scheduling
Department would be deriving the schedules and the Marketing Department would be
working together with newspapers and other communication organizations to insure
that the people wishing to use the service would be made aware of its existence
thus enabling them to utilize the service to the best of their ability. The mix
of modes and the combination of services would offer a program that would be both
effective and cost efficient with the goal of providing the best in transit service.
During the ensuing year their staff was going to take a close look at any difficulty
that may arise in order to adjust the program from time to time.
Mr. Hartwig then explained that a key transit point derived was the Anaheim Plaza
area. It was a major pulse point where all of the community fixed route service
during the morning and evening peak periods could be timed to arrive at the same
time offering a location where people could transfer from one type of service to
another. That transfer point would afford the residents of Anaheim the ability to
be mobile in and around the City.
In concluding, Mr. Hartwig thanked the Council for the support given to the Transit
District, as well as the support of the City staff, in helping them to develop the
concept and bringing it to the point it was at today. They looked forward to that
same cooperation in the future in order to bring the program to fruition in September
which program was aimed at providing maximum service to the citizens of Anaheim.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that another pulse point would be generated in a
couple of months when the new Brookhurst Community Center opened. There would be a
potential of 1,000 people living in the area of Modjeska wanting to frequent the
center since the center did not materialize in their neighborhood, but they had no
means of transportation. She asked Mr. Hartwig if that situation was something
that could be coordinated with the City's Parks Director.
Mr. Hartwig stated that was specifically the type of input they wanted and dis-
cussions to date indicated they would be serving the new center.
78-155
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1978; 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour expressed his appreciation for the efforts put forth by the
OCTD, and although the program was slow in starting, the reality of it was now
becoming apparent.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Hartwig stated that for community service,
they were planning to use Trans-coaches seating 19 to 20 people and Dial-A-Ride
would utilize 6 sedans seating up to 7 people.
Councilman Kott inquired as to the funding of the program and whether or not it
would impact property taxes.
Mr. Hartwig explained the service would be tied into the normal financial programs
of the Transit District. Of their $28 million budget, $3.6 million came from local
property taxes and a like amount would be derived from the fare box. Of the amount
remaining, one-half came from the Federal government, Section 5, Operating Assistance,
and the remainder from the Local Transportation Fund which were sales tax funds
generated and used within Orange County. Property taxes should not be impacted
since the Board endorsed a short-range transportation plan specifically requesting
that revenues generated from property taxes to the Transit District be held to a
constant amount.
Supervisor Clark explained that enabling legislation allowed 5 cents on each $100
of property tax and staff was discussing approximately 4.5 cents, but the District
had never been over 4 cents and presently they were at 3.7 cents. Their dependence
upon property tax had been minimal, but nevertheless, the Board came up with
specific instructions stating that dependence upon property tax was to begin diminish-
ing so that eventually it would be nil. He asked that it be diminished 10 cents
per year until it came to nil, and the Board agreed with his recommendation. Thus,
eventually property tax would not be a factor in any part of the transportation
program, and with the possibility of passage of the Jarvis Initiative, dependence
upon property taxes had to become less, than more. One of the problems was the fact
t~at they had to qualify for matching monies and they, therefore, had to have a
hard local match and property taxes constituted hard local money. They also received
80 percent matching funds from the Federal government when they used 20 percent
of their own money. Further, they were now building up to where they were getting
extra funding from bus advertising, but if a raise in the actual fare box was necessary
to come up with a stronger local match, they would implement such an increase. Prop-
erty tax was no longer a consideration of the Board of Directors as a main consider-
ation for funding.
174: APPLICATION FOR 600 UNITS OF SECTION 8 EXISTING HOUSING: On motion by
Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a letter of endorsement for
application for 600 additional units of Section 8 "existing" housing~b~ing~sub~
mitred to the Department of Housing and Urban Development was authorized as
recommended in memorandum dated February 1, 1978, from the Executive Director of
Community Development, Norm Priest. MOTION CARRIED.
108/142: BUSINESS LICENSE PROGRAM PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS: On motion by Councilman
Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the audit report of the Anaheim Business
License Program systems and procedures was received and filed as recommended in
memorandum dated February 7, 1978, from the City Manager. MOTION CARRIED.
78-156
City Hall, Aaaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, staff was directed
to prepare an amendment to the Code to eliminate apartment complexes of four units
or less from the business tax code. MOTION CARRIED.
107/129: ORDINANCE NO. 3827 - UNIFORM FIRE CODE: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance
No. 3827 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3827: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTER 16.08
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW CHAPTER 16.08 IN ITS PLACE AND STEAD
ADOPTING THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1976 EDITION WITH AMENDMENTS THERETO.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the date and time of
public hearing for the Uniform Fire Code, 1976 Edition, was set for February 28,
1978, at 3:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED.
123/153: ACTUARIAL VALUATION FOR AMENDING SAFETY MEMBER RETIREMENT CONTRACT:
The Mayor asked first if it would be of interest to know what the actuarial
value was for all employees over and above safety employees, and, as well, what
the cost might be to obtain such valuation.
A brief discussion followed between the Mayor, City Manager Talley and Personnel
Director Garry McRae relative to the matter at the conclusion of which, staff was
directed to submit a report to the Council giving the cost to perform actuarial
valuation for all employees.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, a contract was
authorized with the Public Employees' Retirement System for making an actuarial
valuation for amending the Safety Member retirement contract and authorizing the
Personnel Director to execute said contract, and approving payment thereof. MOTION
CARRIED.
1~3: BUS SHELTER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to memo-
randum dated January 27, 1978, from Phil Schwartze, Asssistant Director for Planning,
noting that the demonstration period for the bus shelter program was 90 days. She
considered it to be more realistic to have a six-month trial period go afford a
greater range of weather variation and to give more opportunity for people to
know that the shelters were in place for evaluation purposes.
Mr. Schwartze stated that would be no problem for staff. He also requested that
shelter ads by Echo be included in the demonstration project since they indicated
a desire to participate.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, an extension of time
for completion of the bus shelter installation from December 5, 1977 to February 25,
1978, was approved and the trial period extended from 90 days to 6 months including
the participation of shelter ads by Echo. Councilman Seymour voted "No". MOTION
CARRIED.
123: MOORE & TABOR~ SOIL INVESTIGATION SERVICES - LA PALMA/TUSTIN STORM DRAIN:
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-93 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated January 26, 1978 from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-157
.City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-93: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR SOIL INVESTIGATION SERVICES,
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-93 duly passed and adopted.
148: REQUEST TO ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES FOR CHANGE IN
ITS VOTING POLICY: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-94 for adoption.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the subject requested
change in the voting policy had been broached a number of times Just in the period
she had served on the Council. It was less than a year prior that it came up at
the League, and it was again defeated. Inasmuch as the Council had recently agreed
to pay Anaheim's dues and again become a voting member in the Orange County Division,
she wanted to preclude any further altercations with the League. Since the Mayor
was interested in rejoining because of the Chino Hills Airport, she pointed out
that the largest cities having comparable votes to Anaheim would be Santa Aha and
Garden Grove, and together they were members of the Inter-County Airport Authority
(ICAA) along with Stanton. Thus, they could outvote Anaheim. She urged that there
be an era of cooperation and understanding to solve problems instead.of creating
them, and with the knowledge that at least 8 cities bounded Anaheim on all sides,
including approximately 6 or 7 school districts, she wanted to see the City working
cooperatively with all of the other jurisdictions. Therefore, she would have to
vote no on the proposed resolution.
Councilman Kott commented that he considered it just to vote on the basis of popu-
lation and that was the premise on which national elections were run.
Councilwoman Kaywood countered that it was a matter of facing reality and if
Councilman Kott attended League meetings, it would be obvious to him. There were
26 cities in the Orange County Division of the League with only 4 or 5 large cities.
She believed, therefore, that an exodus of 20 cities from the League would occur.
She stressed there were many other problems that had to be solved in edicts that
came from the State wherein Orange County would have a much larger voice collec-
tively, rather than from individual cities no matter how large. She also reiterated
on question by Councilman Kott, that she believed the 20 smaller cities would drop
out of the League if the change in voting policy came about, since the matter had
come up repeatedly.
The Mayor disagreed relative to potential clout. It was his opinion that the
State Legislature when they received resolutions from the League of Cities for or
against a certain issue, voted in the opposite manner.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated, however, that the Resolutions Chairman for the League
read the yea and nay votes that had come out on all resolutions the League of Cities
had supported or opposed, and there were, in fact, only two which the League had lost.
78-158
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution offered by Councilman Roth.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-94: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES TO MAKE
A CHANGE IN ITS VOTING POLICY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-94 duly passed and adopted.
158: AGREEMENT WITH SUNSET CONSTRUCTION - ORANGEWOOD AVENUE/RAMPART STREET PROPERTY:
Councilman Kott asked City Attorney Hopkins what response he had received from Mr.
Hook, Sunset Construction, relative to the requested financial statement as well as
status of the escrow on the subject property.
Mr. Hopkins explained that he had written Mr. Hook requesting additional financial
data and also talked to one of his associates in Mr. Hook's absence requesting
that such information be prepared. As of today, he had not received any response
to his letter.
Relative to the escrow, Mr. Hopkins stated he believed there was a proposal to
make an amendment to the timing, but the financial data would not affect the
escrow as it was not a part of the escrow proceedings.
Councilman Roth explained that he inquired into the matter personally and found
that Sunset was still awaiting the exact dimensions of the property they were purr
c~asing. He (Roth) wanted to know why the City was taking so long in providing
the necessary information.
Mr. Hopkins could not explain the delay and indicated that he believed that a
request for an extension of time was being requested due to the problem articu-
lated by Councilman Roth.
Councilman Roth was adamant in requesting that it be made clear why the extension
of time was necessary--not because of Mr. Hook, but because the City had not yet
provided a survey of the property determining how much property they were going to
sell.
Later in the meeting, City Manager Talley checked with staff and reported that the
record of survey for City-owned property had been sent out to private industry, and
the City received word that the survey had been completed and would be recorded
this week. It would then be before the Council at the next meeting.
Councilman Roth also requested that information be provided as to who performed
this survey and why it took so long.
78-159
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
127: REQUEST FOR RENDERING OF SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY BY THE COUNTY
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS RELATING TO THE APRIL 11~ 1978 MUNICIPAL ELECTION: Council-
man Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-95 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-95: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO PERMIT THE REGISTRAR
OF VOTERS OF SAID COUNTY TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RE-
LATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON
APRIL 11, 1978.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-95 duly passed and adopted.
108: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT - SABOR CAR CLUB:
(February 10, 1978 from 9:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. at Martin Recreation Center sub-
mitted by Andrew Pizano of the Sabor Car Club) Mr. Licho Acosta, President of
the Sabor Car Club, speaking on behalf of Mr. Pizano, explained that the reason
the Police Department recommended denial of the dance permit was due to the problem
that occurred at a Club dance on February 11, 1977. He then recounted the events
surrounding the dance. At the time, the Parks and Recreation Department explained
that the Car Club was not responsible for any problems that might occur outside of
the recreation center itself. No problems were experienced inside the hall but
later in the evening, when the dance was almost over, people not from Anaheim were
drinking and carrying on outside where a fight broke out and individuals were hurt.
The Police Department report indicated it was the Club's problem which he contended
was not true and, since then, they had been harassed by the Police. Mr. Acosta
t~en briefed the Council on three former successful dances held in Anaheim wherein'
no problems occurred as well as one in Los Angeles and Placentia which were 100
percent successful, financially and otherwise. The Club had never caused any
problems except on one occasion, December 3, 1977, when they had a private party
at a residence and people came who were not invited. Subsequently, police officers
arrived and asked them to disperse or they would be arrested. Mr. Acosta explained
that they had previously contacted the Police Department and were told it was
permissible if the party were kept to a minimum. However, circumstances went beyond
their control even though they tried to turn the intruders away. They finally
relocated the party and experienced no problems for the rest of the evening.
In concluding, Mr. Acosta stated he wanted it made clear to the City Council and
Police Department that the Sabor Car Club was not starting the problems, but in
fact, people coming in from another City as well as those within the City who did
not want to dress and attend their dances, but merely stand outside. They were not
there to have fun but to cause trouble. Mr. Acosta stressed that the Club spent
their money on their cars and to have a good time, and they saw nothing wrong in so
doing as long as they were not hurting anybody else. At this point in time, they
did not want a dance because they knew they would be harassed by the Police
Department. However, they wanted to schedule the dance for another date in the
future even though they had already spent and now lost $275 geared for the
February 10, 1978 dance.
78-160
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1978~ 1:30. P.M.
At the request of the Mayor, Mr. Acosta explained why they had not approached
the Council the prior week when the dance application had been scheduled. He
also explained that when they applied for a permit for the February 10, 1978
dance, they received a letter from Parks and Recreation approving it. They
also applied for Anaheim Police Department security who stated they would be
there. They thus felt assured that there would be no problem and on that basis
they proceeded to have advertisements printed and hired a band.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked, relative to dances held in the past, if the Car Club
took care of the security in the parking lot. Mr. Acosta stated that they did not
do so because Martin Recreation Center had no parking lot and Parks and Recreation
told them as long as no people were going in and out of the dance but were kept
within the four walls of the Center, they would not have to worry about the outside.
However, they did hire security for the February 11, 1977 dance, but it was not
effective because when the fight broke out, the security people ran and the Anaheim
Police Department saw them leaving the scene. Mr. Acosta then confirmed for Council-
man Kott that they did apply for 8 off-duty police officers as reqUested of them as
security for the dance planned for February 10, 1978.
Councilman Kott stated that according to the information given, there was one
instance where a claim was made that outsiders caused the problem. He had seen
the same situation occur before in his own family. Under the circumstances where
the Club stated they would hire off-duty police officers to keep the peace, there
was no reason to deny them the use of a public edifice. He thereupon moved that
the Sabor Car Club be allowed to use the Martin Recreation Center if they supplied
8 off-duty police officers to keep the peace for February 10, 1978 or some future
date.
For purposes of clarification, the Mayor confirmed that Councilman Kott's motion
was stating that the Car Club should be granted a permit as long as they met
security requirements even though the Police Chief would recommend against them.
Councilman Seymour seconded Councilman Kott's motion because he believed in the
spirit in which it was made. On the other hand, he suggested to Mr. Acosta that
at least for himself, in the event there was another problem such as had occurred
a year prior, he could not give his support again.
Mr. Acosta stated that was the reason they wanted to take proper measures on this
occasion and they wanted the security provided by someone that they knew and the
people felt comfortable with. He stated the Anaheim Police officers were much
more understanding than those of other cities.
A brief discussion followed relative to the existing application as well as the
possibility of rescinding the previous week's motion denying the permit and reacti-
vating it by inserting another date. Regarding the existing application, City
Attorney Hopkins stated a new one would be required with a new date.
City Manager Talley interjected that since multiple stabbings occurred on
February 11, 1977 and as much as they were alleging police harassment, it might
be of interest to the Council why the police did not consider granting of the
permit to be in the best interest of the City. He explained that if an event was
78-161
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February~ 7, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
booked that was bound to precipitate an altercation, there was the possibility
of creating or setting the stage for something to occur that not only would be
damaging to the public, but also could injure an off-duty police officer.
Detective Robert Schroeder stated the only reason they were recommending against
the dance itself was because of the situation that occurred at the February 11,
1977 dance involving four knifings. According to the police report, however,
all problems occurred outside of the hall and the suspects involved, to the
Police Department's knowledge, were all from outside of the City and none were
members of the Sabor Car Club. He continued that dances of that type had a
tendency to draw other people in, just as with large house parties with bands,
and they did become police problems no matter how many people were on-hand to
keep the noise down and people and alcohol out.
The Mayor wanted to know Detective Schroeder's reaction if sufficient police
security was provided between 5 to 10 officers, if that would tend to minimize
an occurrence such as that on February 11, 1977.
Detective Schroeder stated that such security would probably tend to minimize the
problem, but not stop it.
Councilman Seymour explained that the Council understood the risks involved and
there were no guarantees but they felt that the club should be given another oppor-
tunity. The easy way out was to prohibit future dances but the social values had
to be balanced. It was in no way a matter of denying the Police Department from
giving their input or advice.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion wherein a permit would be granted to the
Sabor Car Club in the future provided security requirements were met with a minimum
of 8 off-duty police officers and the previous week's action denying a permit for
F~bruary 10, 1978 was also upheld. MOTION CARRIED.
123: ADVERTISING SPACE ON ANAHEIM STADIUM SCOREBOARD: (Coca-Cola Company -
continued from December 27, 1977 and January 17, 1978) On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, the proposed agreement with the Coca-Cola
Company for advertising rights for five years on the Anaheim Stadium Scoreboard
was continued for two weeks. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By'general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes. (2:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:00 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2988: Application by James R. and Barbara D. Spangler,
to retain an existing 6-foot high block wall on RS-HS-10,000 zoned property located
at 435 South Avenida Faro with code waivers of:
a) maximum wall height (in part)
b) minimum side yard setback (deleted)
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-281, reported that
the Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01, Classes 3 and 5 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to
78-162
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
the requirement for an environmental impact report and is therefore, categorically
exempt from the requirement to file and EIR and, further, granted Variance No. 2988,
in part, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall obtain an encroachment permit for
the existing six (6) foot high block wall or request and get approval for the
abandonment of the public utility easement and the public Right-of-Way.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked EXhibit Nos. 1 through 4,
provided, however, that within the triangle formed by the line connecting two points;
one located on ten (10) feet easterly of the west (rear) property line on the north
(Calle Canada) property line and the other located five (5) feet southerly of the
north (Calle Canada) property line on the west (rear) property line, said wall shall
either be reduced to 42 inches in over-all height or shall be modified to wrought
iron grill work or other non-view obscuring material for the fencing between 42 inches
and six (6) feet in height.
3. That Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the
commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution or within a period
of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the
Planning Commission may grant.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and public
hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
Miss Santalahti clarified for Councilman Roth that a building permit was issued
fOr a 6-foot block wall.
Councilman Roth noted from correspondence received from the applicant that there
had been a great deal of discussion regarding the dangers of approaching traffic,
but the Traffic Engineer indicated there was no problem.
Miss Santalahti confirmed that, in essence, there was no traffic problem.
Councilman Kott observed that since the street was a cul-de-sac, no oncoming traffic
would be encountered when residents backed out and they also would be in the lane
going in the proper direction. Thus, not much of a traffic problem was apparent.
Miss Santalahti agreed that there appeared to be only a minimal impact since it
was a very short street with no through traffic.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of
being heard.
Mr. Ron Spangler, 435 South Avenida Faro, referred to his letter dated January 31,
1978 (made a part of the record) listing the reasons for his appeal and he read
aloud items A through E. He also submitted additional photographs showing similar
walls that had been constructed in the Anaheim Hills area. In concluding, he
78-163
City Hallt AnaheimI California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7, 1978t 1:30 P.M.
emphasized the financial hardship that would be placed on himself and his family
if the wall had to be altered over and above the cost already incurred in preparing
for the hearings, as well as lost time from this Job.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mrs. Henry Hopkins, 5620 Calls Canada, working from a map showing the cul-de-sac
explained that her house was located on the other side of the 6-foot wall which
Mr. Spangler had constructed. She stated it was impossible to see any person or
child when backing out of her driveway. They had a wall built around their property
but stayed within Anaheim's Code although they had considered going over 42 inches.
Mrs. Hopkins then relayed information relative to what she had been told by the
Anaheim Police Department regarding the possibilities of being cited for backing
out of a driveway under the present circumstances. He stated she was not only
breaking Code Section 22106 every time she started her car, but two associated
criminal codes, Section 21804 and Section 21952. Mrs. Hopkins read all three
aloud. She further investigated all of the liabilities they were subject to by
Just being in their driveway wherein they would automatically be held negligent
because they would be the backing vehicle. She stressed that the possibilities of
being held liable were many. Thus, for the sake of children living there now and
those who would be living there in the future, as well as other people who might
live in the residence, she urged the City Council to remove the liability and
death hazard the wall presented. If the wall had been constructed for the safety
of a child or some other good reason, she would be amenable to it, but Mr. Spangler
told the Planning Commission the reason for putting the wall up was due to the fact
that he did not like children waving good morning to him on their way to school while
he was eating breakfast.
A brief discussion followed between Councilman Roth and Mrs. Hopkins regarding the-
fact that the Traffic Engineer indicated no hazard was involved as well as the
privacy factor which, Councilman Roth stated, would be lacking without the wall.
Mrs. Hopkins then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the residents all moved
in at approximately the same time and initially they (Hopkins) had asked the
Spanglers if they wanted to participate in building a wall between the properties.
The Spanglers said no because they had only planned to be there temporarily (approxi-
mate 15 to 18 months) and they had no need for a wall and did not want one. Later,
however, Mr. Spangler spoke to Mr. Hopkins relative to building a wall and when he
suggested a'block wall, Mr. Hopkins objected. Thereupon, Mr. Spangler suggested
a wrought iron fence, to which Mr. Hopkins was agreeable. In finality, however,
the wrought iron consisted of only a one-foot portion joining the Spangler fence
to theirs.
Mrs. Hopkins continued stating that when the wall was started, she spoke to the
building contractor relative to the height which he indicated was going to be 6
feet. She thereupon stated that height was not allowed in Anaheim Hills and sub-
sequently she went to the Building Department and was told no wall could be over
42 inches and was given a copy of the Code section stating same. She then filed a
complaint with the Planning Commission as suggested to her by the Building Division.
She did not speak to the Spanglers at that time, but to the contractor only who said
he spoke to the Spanglers, and they told him to proceed.
Discussion followed between Councilman Kott and Mrs. Hopkins wherein it was established
that as she backed out of her driveway, she would have access to viewing the traffic '.
78-164
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7; 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
on the east as soon as the drivers' door hit the sidewalk. Councilman Kott main-
tained that would be the direction in which the traffic hazard would lie. Mrs.
Hopkins stated that in order to back their cars out of their driveway, they had to
walk out to the sidewalk to make certain no children were present and then the car
could be backed out.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested visibility could be improved if the Hopkins' backed
into, instead of out of, their driveway.
Mr. Bernie Alpert, 5600 Calle Canada, spoke relative to the privacy issue as ex-
plained by Mr. Spangler. Privacy was vital to the matter at hand; however, safety
was also the issue. He had two children and he was concerned over the blind drive-
way and the hazard it presented. He suggested, therefore, that the Traffic Engineer
reevaluate the situation. He further suggested that there was some compromise that
could be reached and maybe a portion of the wall could come down. He recommended
that the Hopkins, his family and the Spanglers meet and discuss the matter to see
what could be done. He was concerned relative to the ramifications since he had
been in neighborhoods where everyone had become enemies over similar matters. Mr.
Alpert, therefore, wanted a continuance in order to bring that meeting to fruition.
The Mayor explained that a continuance could only be granted if the applicant,
the Spanglers, wanted such a continuance.
Mr. Spangler did not want a continuance, but requested that the matter be resolved
today.
In su~mnation, Mr. Spangler referred to the last paragraph of the letter dated
December 21, 1977, from Traffic Engineer Paul Singer, wherein it stated if caution
were used by exiting vehicles from the Hopkins' driveway, no traffic hazard was
evident (refer to CVC 21804). He also submitted an additional picture showing the
visibility available even with a vehicle well up into the driveway which was taken
f~om the lot entering the cul-de-sac. It depicted the front window of the vehicle'
where the driver would be sitting showing clear visibility.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by .Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination of
the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Classes 3 and 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements
for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from
the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-96 for adoption, granting Variance No.
2988, thus eliminating Finding Number 2 and Condition Number 2 of Planning Commis-
sion Resolution No. PC77-281 pertaining to modifications to the existing wall. He
explained the reason for offering the resolution in favor was due to the fact that
HACMAC approved the requested Variance by a 10-0 vote, as well as the statements of
the Traffic Engineer indicating that there was no traffic hazard involved. Further,
the Building Division issued a permit for the 6-foot wall and even if it was re-
duced in height, it would not protect the children who would allegedly be injured.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-96: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2988.
78-165
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-96 duly passed and adopted.
170: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE - TENTATIVE TRACT
NO. 10155: Application by Chester Peterson and Beverly Ann Compton, request for
waiver of lot line requirements of the Hillside Grading Ordinance on property
located west and southwest of the southwest corner of the Santa Aha Canyon Road
and Avenida Margarita for Lot Nos. 10 through 17 of the proposed 21-lot, RS-7200(SC)
zoned subdivision.
The City Planning Commission recommended approval of the subject'waiver.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Ms. Sylvia Mickler, representing the agent of the owners, indicated her presence
if there were any questions.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, waiver of the Hillside
Grading Ordinance relating to lot line requirements of Tentative Tract No. 10155, was
approved. MOTION CARRIED.
107: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: Application by Taylor Bus Company ret
q6esting a permit to move a metal building from its present location in Santa Fe
Springs to 917 Pacifico Avenue.
Report dated January 18, 1978 was submitted by the Zoning Division recommending
that the move-on be approved subject to the conditions that the metal building
be brought into conformance with the Council's metal building policy.
A brief discussion followed between Council and staff relative to the fact that the
building must be painted and the usual colors were earthen tones or buff colors.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of
being heard; no one was present.
The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to be heard either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-97 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-97: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO TAYLOR BUS COMPANY. (Santa Fe Springs to 917
Pacifico Avenue)
78-166
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-97 duly passed and adopted.
123: AWARD OF CONTRACT - CONVENTION CENTER EAST PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS:
(Project Account No. 38,4855-985-20-0893) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolu-
tion No. 78R-98 for adoption, finding that no bids were received on the subject
project and that the Job would be readvertised at a later date. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-98: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THERE WERE NO BIDS RECEIVED ON THE CONVENTION CENTER
EAST PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS, PROJECT ACCOUNT NO. 38-4855-985-20'0893.
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-98 duly passed and adopted.
173: TAXICAB PERMIT - RECONSIDERATION: Request by Manuel M. Lozano, Lozano
Limousine Tours, for reconsideration of a permit to operate a taxicab.
Mr. Manuel Lozano, 621 Chippewa, #158, stated that on January 17, 1978, when he
appeared before the Council (see minutes of January 17, 1978) he was asked for
items he was not fully prepared to submit at that time, but he was now prepared
to do so. He thereupon submitted the following: (1) copy of insurance binder;
(2) copy of check of the deposit made on the necessary insurance; (3) three
places where he could stand his cab and letters from the principals at those
locations giving authorization to do so--Tour Planner Travel Agency, 1734 South
Harbor Boulevard, Suite 301; Wanderlust Motel, 1701 South West Street, and
Anaheim Plaza, 500 North Euclid Street; and (4) a copy of safety inspection report
received from the California Highway Patrol.
Mr. Lozano continued that he had made arrangements to have two-way radio communi-
cations for the future; requested one extra line on his telephone covered by an
answering service; and the rates he would charge were already established by the
cab company presently operating in the City. Relative to providing service to
the entire City, his service would be based on one unit, three drivers for 24 hours
a day, and his main objective was to provide service to the Spanish-speaking
community. If extra units were required, he assured the Council he would be able
to obtain them. He explained further that two blocks from Anaheim's City Hall was
an area considered to be one of the largest Spanish-speaking communities in the
County, second only to Santa Ana, representing approximately 25 percent of the
population in Anaheim not taking into account people coming from Mexico and Central
America. He, therefore, wanted to serve those people and he was again approaching
the Council because he had confidence the Council would now give him the opportunity
to do so.
78-167
qity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7, 19~8~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Lozano if he had contacted Mr. Larry Sierk from
the Chamber of Commerce as suggested at the last meeting.
Mr. Lozano stated that he had only talked briefly to one of the people from the
Chamber outside of the building after the last meeting, but the situation discussed
was a different matter and had nothing to do with a taxicab permit but only for
limousine service. He did not follow through because he did not consider it to be
the right time to contact the Chamber. Later in the meeting, Mr. Lozano explained
that the basic reason he did not discuss the matter further with the Chamber was
due to the fact that he was out of town and there was no time to do so before
today's meeting for which he had to prepare. However, he would still talk to them
in the future.
Councilman Seymour stated that Mr. Lozano obviously felt there was a need for
Spanish speaking cab service in the City of Anaheim that was not now being
fulfilled.
Mr. Lozano confirmed that was correct and the basis for that was the result of
some checking he had done in the past 4 or 5 days on the City's present cab service.
He watched closely and did not see anybody who looked like they spoke Spanish, and
he also had some of his friends call to ascertain whether or not that service was
available and it was not. As well, they asked if anyone was available for one or
two hours who could speak Spanish because the person who wished to utilize the ser-
vice could only speak Spanish, and they were told "no".
Mr. Hernando Gallevez, 2451 Transit Avenue, first stated that the leadership in
the City Council and the Mayor had been very helpful in developing Anaheim into
the City it was today, having a realistic view of community needs. The society
was now also more realistic relative to the needs of individual people and he
cited specific examples. He stated there were people who did not speak English
well and it was difficult for them to communicate. He then gave. an example of
t~e turmoil caused when he asked for service in Spanish at a local post office and'
no one could communicate with him except a mail carrier who was able to assist
after he had waited about fifteen minutes. Mr. Gallevez then explained that he
volunteered his time to the Office of Minority Business Enterprises of the Depart-
ment of Commerce and Mr. Lozano's case came to his attention when he (Lozano)
applied for an SBA loan to develop his business. He contended that the request
for a permit would in no way be a threat to the Yellow Cab Company considering the
following: 'he made three random calls to Yellow Cab himself in Spanish (January 22,
1978 at 3:16 p.m., January 26, 10:10 a.m., February 3, 1978 at 6:35 p.m.) as well
as two other people, one on February 6, 1978 at 2:06 p.m. and the other on
February 6, 1978 at 6:05 p.m.; all five attempts to obtain service were unsuccessful;
however, on one attempt they were finally able to communicate with someone who .could
speak Spanish.
The Mayor stated he was under the assumption that the thrust of Mr. Gallevez's
presentation was to show that, in fact, there was a need and necessity for a
Spanish-speaking taxicab service in the City geared to serve the mono-lingual
tourist, as well as Anaheim residents.
Mr. Gallevez stated that relative to the business of tourism, if the service was
available, tourists would use it, and as well, the businesses that could be served
because such a service was provided would also gain. He then cited some of the
78-168
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7; 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
various tourist attractions in the area which the service would benefit. A con-
cern of his was the fact that many people in the Chicano community did not have
a car and if a woman wanted to take her children to the doctor and she was aware
that there was a dependable Spanish-speaking service, she would also utilize that
service. He thereupon challenged the Council to call the Yellow Cab Company and
try to get service if they could not speak English.
Mr. Gallevez concluded by stating that there were those in the community who were
prepared to assist Mr. Lozano to help in the administration of his business because
they were interested in getting minorities into the mainstream. He was certain that
Yellow Cab, in the spirit of cooperation, would also assist in helping him to do a
good Job.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if someone who spoke English wanted to utilize Mr.
Lozano's cab service, would they be turned down.
Mr. Lozano first confirmed that they would not be turned down becaUse they also
represented business. Mr. Gallevez also elaborated on that aspect, but in finality
stated that Mr. Lozano could not refuse that service.
Councilman Seymour stated that the matter raised the question he had at the last
meeting, that being relative to a call for service coming in from someone in the
Santa Ana Canyon and if Mr. Lozano could respond. The last time the answer was
no. This was now an indication that he would respond to the call.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Lozano confirmed that he would respond to the call
whether English or Spanish speaking and eventually if there was a need for more
cars, there was someone who would lend him the money to purchase the additional
vehicles.
Mr. Robert Sevedra, 939 Lake Summit, explained that he was presently a project
c6ordinator assisting in the staging of the first Orange County Minority Business
Training Fair in an effort to assist the minority business person to do more
business with government and larger corporations and to enhance transactions be-
tween those two factors. The activity was being co-sponsored by the County of
Orange and the Orange County Chamber of Commerce. The whole thrust was to improve
and provide a better opportunity for minority businesses and he anticipated that
the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce would also participate in the same spirit by assisting
Mr. Lozano in serving Anaheim constituents. He believed that everyone would profit
if the permit were granted, and he urged support of Mr. Lozano's request. In con-
cluding, he agreed with Councilwoman Kaywood that the local Chamber would be a
good place to see to it that requests received would be channeled to Mr. Lozano, but
before he could utilize the cooperation of the Chamber, it was necessary to have a
permit.
Rosio Torre, 619 North Chippewa, #150, addressed the Council in Spanish and relayed
the following as interpreted by Mayor Thom: She lived in Anaheim and was the mother
of four children. On occasion, she needed cab service to go to the market and
other places and she tried to engage Yellow Cab, but it was unsuccessful. She would
look forward to a service such as that proposed by Mr. Lozano for those times when
she had to leave the house to run certain errands. She would be much more comfort-
able in so doing if she could call a service that was primarily Spanish-speaking,
thus enabling her to do so with ease and frequency and not encounter the difficulties
of communicating that were inherent in a purely English-speaking operation.
78-169
.,City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Grace Roundtree, 1327 Chevy Chase, stated that she believed there was a need
for bilingual taxi drivers. Her husband, as well, also believed there was a need
for translators because he had encountered the same situation when he drove for
Yellow Cab for one and a half years. He was able to communicate with Latin people
however because of his wife.
The Mayor clarified that Mrs. Roundtree was supporting the fact that there was a
need in the City for bilingual or primarily Spanish-speaking taxicab service.
Irma Alvarez, 470 North Maraposa, addressed the Council in Spanish and relayed the
following as interpreted by Mayor Thom: She recounted the problems her family
and her mother and sister encountered at various times, and the difficulties
in getting transportation when attempting from time to time to call Yellow Cab to
convey the need to them. They would not get a response. Thus, they were left
without taxi service and had to resort to other means. She supported Mr. Lozano's
efforts to have bilingual taxicab service.
Mr. Larry Slagle, 1619 East Lincoln, representing the Yellow Cab Company in Anaheim,
stated as indicated at the last meeting that they did have bilingual drivers and
office people, as well as drivers of other minorities. He further explained that
on the dispatch end, mimeographed sheets were available and if the employees did not
understand or speak fluent Spanish relative to the questions they were to ask or
if they could not recognize something, it was passed on to their supervisor. Mr.
Slagle stated that they had not had any complaints. Earlier indications were that
Mr. Lozano would be looking for the Spanish tourist. Yellow Cab received such requests
and they had the drivers and specifically they were the only drivers that could be
sent. Thus, they could fill the need. On the other hand, they had white drivers
and black drivers who could not speak Spanish but they had no Spanish drivers who
could not speak English and there were many employees with Spanish surnames that
he could relate to. He did not believe there was a laCk of service because of the
language problem. He maintained that it was a matter of relieving the sole respon-
sibility of that service, Yellow Cab, and getting into some problems that perhaps
would result in problems in the future. He also stated that he believed a conver-
sation with the Chamber of Commerce would have resulted in a group meeting with the
three parties because he and Larry Sierk had discussed the matter before he (Sierk)
made his offer to assist and there were jobs that Mr. Lozano could do for Yellow
Cab. Relative to the permit, everyone would like to be in business for himself.
However, in 1977, transportation was the only business that made no gains and more
companies in the transportation field went into the red or out of business. He
urged the Council to deny the application for a taxicab permit as they did at the
previous meeting.
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Slagle what procedure a dispatcher would follow if he.
received a request for a Spanish-speaking cab driver.
Mr. Slagle explained the request would be given to a Spanish-speaking cab driver.
Further, as questioned by Councilman Roth, a driver could be contacted to pick up
that passenger and if he was on a trip at that time, he would be directed to that
passenger after the trip. They had not received any complaints regarding such
matters, and he did not believe the City had received any, and he knew for certain
the Chamber had not received any such complaints.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Slagle indicated that approximately 10 calls
a month were received requesting a strictly Spanish-speaking driver, and one driver
78-170
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
could not be kept busy all the time with Just that type of request. Most such
requests came from hotels and the Chamber did not have any part in the matter, but
usually such requests were channeled through the Visitor and Convention Bureau.
If somebody wanted transportation information, he would send a brochure and a card
so the recipient would know to contact him directly. Generally, requests were
received from bellboys.
Councilman Seymour questioned Mr. Slagle relative to the testimony given on calls
made to Yellow Cab in Spanish on several occasions and in all instances, Yellow
Cab was unable to communicate.
Mr. Slagle explained that for as long as he had been on the dispatch (4 years) and
when he first started with Yellow Cab, there were only one or two occasions where
he could not get the message himself. He explained the procedure he followed in
ascertaining the location of the potential passenger and concluded by stating that
he could count on one hand the number of calls during that time which he handled
himself where there was a problem in responding. Mr. Slagle also explained for
Councilman Seymour that of 125 drivers, there were approximately 8 or 10 with
Spanish surnames, approximately 25 to 30 were women and the balance of drivers
had a one language capability. He also clarified that he could sell his franchise
or permit to operate to anyone subject to Council approval and police clearance.
Mr. Edward Solgado, 4956 East Holbrook, maintained the situation was one of need
assessment. If there was no need for the service, Mr. Lozano was going to go out
of business and Yellow Cab would not be harmed in any way. He took issue with the
numbers given to Councilwoman Kaywood relative to calls requesting Spanish-speaking
drivers and believed it implied that people were not calling because they knew the
service was not available. Also, a Spanish surname did not mean the driver could
speak Spanish. To him there was a strong indication that there was a need for such
service as proposed by Mr. Lozano and it was a matter of free enterprise.
D~scusslon then followed between Councilman Seymour and Mr. Solgado wherein Council-
man Seymour explained the reason why he voted against the permit previously was
relative to the ability to serve. He further pointed out situations in other
large metropolitan cities where, because of a lack of control over the number of
taxicab franchises offered, the public was suffering from two aspects, (1) in the
area of service because of the competition for business, and (2) they were getting
"ripped off" by excessive rates. He also questioned where the issuance of such
permits should stop. Mr. Gallevez interjected and took issue with the rip-off
aspect relative to rates stating that it was local government who approved rates.
In answer to Councilman Seymour who asked if, in fact, there was a need not presently
being served, Mr. Gallevez stated that it would be a disservice to the Spanish
speaking community not to have the service that was being offered by Mr. Lozano.
MOTION: Mayor Thom reiterated his stand on the matter: (1) Mr. Lozano posed no
threat to the Yellow Cab Company and (2) he felt strongly there was a need and
necessity for a bilingual, principally Spanish-speaking service, not only for
Spanish-speaking tourists, but also Spanish-speaking Anaheim residents, (3) Mr.
Lozano lives in Anaheim and was a minority entrepeneur trying to get started in
business. Over the years, he had looked askance at applications for taxi service
in Anaheim because he felt they were a threat to Yellow Cab since they merely
wanted to capitalize on the tourist business. This was not the case with Mr. Lozano,
and he maintained the Council should do everything in its power to give citizens of
Anaheim am. opportunity not only to become Anaheim businessmen, but also a prosperous
78-171
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ !.978, 1:30 P.M.
Anaheim businessman. The Council should look favorably upon any member of the ethnic
minority community to assist them in getting that opportunity, and thus Mr. Lozano's
request for a taxicab permit should be granted. If he failed and wanted to sell his
permit to someone else, he could do it, but they could not operate without Council's
permission. If he became very successful and wanted to sell to another taxicab
company, the Council would still have that same control. He reiterated the Council
had complete control over the matter. They should, therefore, show good' faith in
Mr. Lozano and he thereupon moved to grant a permit to operate a taxicab to Mr.
Lozano. Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott stated it was very commendable for someone
like Mr. Lozano to want to enter into a business venture and from the testimony
received, he was inclined to approve the request for a permit.
After posing several questions to Mr. Lozano for clarification purposes, Councilman
Seymour then asked City Attorney Hopkins what legal ramifications there were in
either granting a permit to Mr. Lozano for a specific given period of time and/or
preventing sale to another company.
Mr. Hopkins stated that the Code required a person operating the business be granted
a permit from the City Council and no one could operate unless they had that, which
was granted by application. The business could not be sold until the other person
obtained a permit from the City Council. He believed such action would stand up
in court. Relative to a specific period of time, there was no particular provision
in the Code setting a period of time, and there was nothing that stated it could not
be set for two or three years. Normally, however, the revocation procedure would
terminate the permit.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there were any restrictions or controls that could be
placed upon Mr. Lozano if he found it was not profitable to sit and wait for business,
but instead wanted to offer his services in the Disneyland and Convention Center
area.
Mr. Hopkins stated the permit would allow him to operate a taxicab business anywhere
in Anaheim and he did not believe it could be restricted to any certain area, thus it
would be a city-wide permit. The findings that the Council must make were that
public convenience or necessity required operation of the taxicab in the City of
Anaheim. The bond and other requirements concerning safe and adequate equipment
had been presented to the Council today. Relative to the question of setting a
precedent as raised by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Hopkins stated that anything
that was done would set a precedent and anyone else would have the right to apply
in the future.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion offered by Councilman Thom granting a
taxicab permit to Mr. Lozano for operation in the City of Anaheim and carried
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Seymour, ~mtt and Thom
Kaywood and Roth
None
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had great difficulty in coming to a decision as she
was concerned over setting a precedent and believed the Council would be inundated
with similar requests. In concluding, however, she wished Mr. Lozano great success
in his business venture.
78-172
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
169: REQUEST - Y. F. HAMMATT - ORANGEWOOD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT: Mr. Young F. Hammatt,
1540 West Orangewood explained that he had been waiting for two years and two months
for action to take place on Orangewood, and several times staff had sent letters to
him indicating that all offers had been withdrawn and plans were changed. He re-
ferred to a letter dated December 30, 1977, sent by his attorney outlining a proposed
settlement of the matter, as well as a letter dated January 27, 1978 in answer sent
by the Engineering Division (both on file in the City Clerk's Office). He specifically
referred to the first four items: (1) the City's offer to pay $36,000 for the
value of the Hammatt residence, (2) $4,000 for landscaping, (3) permitting the
Ha~tts to live in the house until August 1, 1978 and (4) the right to remove
various fixtures or items of adornment before demolition. Mr. Hammatt then
submitted a rendering of the house, as it was presently, for Council viewing.
Relative to the amount offered for the house, Mr. Hammatt explained that Cedric
White, the appraiser, stated it would cost $60,000 to replace the home. As well,
he had a certified horticulture man evaluate the shrubbery and he placed a value
on it of $26,750. The man sent by the Engineering Department from the Parks
Department valued the shrubbery at $10,000 for that which was in the right-of-way
and $16,700 for that around the remainder of the house.
Mr. Hammatt then commented on Number 5, Items A through G, of the December 30,
1977 letter indicating agreement with A through E. Relative to F, replacement
of four driveways with one 30-foot driveway, he felt the driveway should be com-
pleted on an angle to enable cars to turn in and out. He also asked for a re-
taining wall 2.5 feet high which the City Engineer did not consider necessary
(Item No. G). He stated he made no mention at the time of the irrigation system
that would have to be replaced if the total 25 feet was taken.
Mr. Hammatt continued that after two and one-half years of waiting, last week he
applied for a permit and since then, things had moved very quickly. Yesterday
he had a meeting with Public Works Director Thornton Piersall and although the
offer was still $36,000 for the house, the City was now offering $17,000 for the
landscaping, planters, relocation costs, moving storage, and miscellaneous expenses
and they would be allowed to stay in the house. The City would also carry out items
A through F, under Number 5 of the December 30, 1977 letter as well as provide the
30-foot drive approach with the installation of sidewalks and a retaining wall if
needed. Mr. Hammatt was anxious to have the matter settled in a timely fashion.
Councilman Roth maintained that the problem was unusual in that to obtain the value
of the house, market value plus depreciation was used when normally value is determined
by comparable sales. He personally viewed the property and found the house to be a
superior 1,500 square-foot house in excellent condition which on the open market
would be worth considerably more than $60,000. Councilman Roth thereupon askedMr.
Hammatt if he was saying the terms presented to him were acceptable.
Mr. Hammatt emphasized that he did not want the matter to continue any longer. He
explained if the money for the house and shrubbery would give him a new home, it
would still not recompence him for the fact that they had to move their business
because they were told the street would be blocked for six months thus not allowing
his trucks ingress and egress. The move cost him over $1,000 a month since January
1977. However, the time and effort and the fact that he could not sleep at night
was tiresome. Therefore, he would be thankful for the $57,000, but if the City could
give him more, he would be most appreciative.
78-173
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Further discussion followed relative to the funding of the project and City Engineer
Maddox stated it was an AHFP project financed partly by the City and partly by the
County and funds were already allocated for the job. He also pointed out that Mr.
Hammatt mentioned the figure of $57,000 but the offer made that morning was $36,000
for the home, based upon the appraisal less depreciation, and $17,000 for the landscap-
ing, planters, moving, storage, relocation and miscellaneous expenses, totally $53,000.
He suggested if that was satisfactory, that an agreement be prepared and submitted
to the Council. City Manager Talley stated the matter could be brought up under
unfinished business at the next meeting.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Hammatt if he would be satified with $53,000.
Mr. Hammatt stated that he would be coming before the Council within the next
few weeks because there was an additional 1.5 acres involved. After the present
matter was settled, he was going to have to do something with that property. Thus,
he would take the $53,000 with the hope that he would get proper consideration later
on. He confirmed that his answer was yes.
Councilman Kott made an analogy between the situation under discussion and that which
occurred with the Redevelopment Agency when displacement and relocation was involved.
Thus, in the interst of fairness in what was being done elsewhere in the City, Mr.
Hammatt should receive $60,000 for his home.
After a brief discussion on the matter, City Manager Talley stated there were two
minor differences, the first being that the City was not trying to acquire the
entire property, but that Mr. Hammatt was going to keep the majority of it. In the
redevelopment area, the City bought everything, including the land and subsequently
it was cleared and the tenants moved out entirely. In this case, the City recognized
the value of the house was depreciated; however, they were adding back $17,000 for.
the landscaping and Mr. Hammatt still retained the greater part of the property.
C6uncilman Roth moved that a total payment of $53,000 be made to Mr. Hammatt with'~
the final agreement outlining the terms to be submitted to the Council in one week.
Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: CINCO DE MAYO FIESTA: Request by Frances L. Martinez, Community Liason for
Fremont Junior High School, for financial assistance and use of La Palma Park and
its facilities for the Cinco de Mayo Fiesta and dance to be held April 28 and 30,
1978.
The Mayor first stated that since the City of Anaheim was a co-sponsor in the
Cinco de Mayo Fiesta in years past, as such, no gift of public funds was involved.
Miss Helen Daniel, Community Aide for Anaheim High School, explained that she was
speaking for Frances Martinez who could not attend and was requesting permission to
utilize La Palma Park and its facilities for the Cinco de Mayo Fiesta to be held
April 28 and 30, 1978. She also requested financial assistance in the sum of $1,500
to cover the cost of professional entertainment that would be used on Sunday,
April 30, 1978. The Fiesta would be co-sponsored by Fremont Junior High School,
Anaheim High School and the City of Anaheim. It was an event-that benefited the
community in promoting understanding since it was an activity where students,
parents, and the community at large became involved. As well, the funds derived
would be used to help students in their economic needs, extracurricular activities
at school and the like.
78-174
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour moved that the City co-sponsor the Cinco de Mayo Fiesta with
$1,500 to be expended from the Council Contingency Fund for the event, with no
portion of the funds being used for religious purposes, as well as authorization
for the use of La Palma Park and its facilities. Councilman Kott seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Alexander J. Kotek for damage to real property and associated
loss purportedly sustained as a result of possible negligence and carelessness by
the Building Division on or about November 1977.
b. Claim submitted by Marian Lee Stone for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of a fall at La Palma Park Stadium (ticket booth) on or about October 19,
1977.
c. Claim submitted by Beth L. Shook for property damage purportedly sustained as
the result of car hitting a hole in the road (Valleyforge Avenue) on or about
January 16, 1978.
d. Claim submitted by Harry L. Gates for property damage purportedly sustained as
a result of automobile hitting a sunken sewer trench (4410 La Palma) on or about
January 6, 1978.
e. Claim submitted by Susan Dunne for property damage purportedly sustained as a
r~sult of a large hole in the street (La Palma and Lakeview) on or about January 5',
1978.
f. Claim submitted by Gene E. Erickson and Vera E. Erickson for personal injuries
purportedly sustained as a result of improper operation of traffic signal at Katella
Avenue and Claudina Way on or about October 11, 1977.
g. Claim submitted by Arnold V. Cevera, David Ray Cevera, by his Guardian ad Litem,
Arnold V. Cevera and Ranan Galindo, by his Guardian ad Litem, Rosa R. Salisbury for
personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of failure of an electric traffic
signal (Euclid and Westmont) on or about October 14, 1977.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspendence was ordered received and filed:
a. 114: City of.Downey Resolution No. 3498 opposing the housing distribution
proposal of SCAG.
b. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of January 16, 1978.
c. 105: Community Services Board - Minutes of November 22, 1977.
d. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of January 10, 1978.
e. 114: City of Colton letter requesting support of their opposition to AB 368.
78-175
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
f. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of December 13, 1977 and January 17, 1978.
3. 108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMITS: The following permits were approved in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Amusement Devices Permit to allow two pinball-cocktail tables at Mr. Al's,
1050 West Katella Avenue. (William F. Dreyer, applicant)
b. Amusement Devices Permit to allow a pinball-cocktail table at Howard Johnson's,
1350 South Harbor Boulevard. (William F. Dreyer, applicant)
c. Amusement Devices Pemit to allow a pinball-cocktail table at Hansa House Smorgas-
bord, 1840 South Harbor Boulevard. (William F. Dreyer, applicant)
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-99 and 78R-102
through 78R-104, 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-99: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Arthur H. Kaplan,
et al.; Frank B. Torres, et ux.; Santa Fe Land Improvement Co.; Clyde L. Millett,
et ux.; Jacques Consteau Assayag, et al.; Eddie J. Corrales, et ux.; Sunburst
Development, Inc.; William S. Fukuda, et ux.; Bland Huffman, Jr., et ux.)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 78-102: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET(S)
OR ALLEY(S) AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (77-12A, south of Broadway
Street, east of Melrose Street, hearing set for February 28, 1978, 3:00 P.M.)
170: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-103: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO ADJACENT PARCELS PURSUANT
TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT MARKED EXHIBIT "A" AND ATTACHED HERETO ON LLAP #18 -
(S/o Santa Ana Canyon Road, W/o Lakeview)
170: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-104: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A LOT INE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO ADJACENT PARCELS PURSUANT
TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT MARKED EXHIBIT "A" AND ATTACHED HERETO ON LLAP #19 -
(S/o Mohler Drive, E/o Country Hill Road)
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-99 and 78R-102 through 78R-104, both
inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
78-176
.~ity Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
103: BALL-FREEWAY NO. 2 ANNEXATION: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No.
78R-100 for adoption, approving Ball-Freeway Annexation No. 2, uninhabited, approx-
imately 2.5 acres located southeast of the intersection of the Orange Freeway and
Ball Road. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-100: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIG-
NATED BALL-FREEWAY NO. 2 ANNEXATION.(2.5 acres southeast of intersection of the
Orange Freeway and Ball Road)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-100 duly passed and adopted.
176: ABANDONMENT NO. 77-9A: Request by James W. McAlvin, Anaheim Memorial Hospital,
to abandon a portion of an existing public street commonly known as Hermosa Drive
located in Tract No. 1691, north of La Palma Avenue, west of West Street, to pro-
vide additional parking spaces.
Councilman Seymour stated he would abstain from voting on the subject abandonment
because of a conflict of interest since he performed small property management
work for Anaheim Memorial Hospital.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-101 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
R~SOLUTION NO. 78R-101: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET(S) OR ALLEY(S)
AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (77-9A, Hermosa Drive, public hearing
set for February 28, 1978, 3:00 P.M.)
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 Resolution No. 78R-101 duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held January 16, 1978, pertaining to the following
applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-25(READV.): Submitted by William Darlin, Joseph B.
Edwards, William D. Procopio and Frank and Louise Gerry, for a change in zone from
CO to CL on property located at 616, 620, 624, 626 and 630 South Euclid Street.
78-177
City Hal.l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1978; 1:30. P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution NO. PC78-9, granted Reclassi-
fication No. 77-78-25 and granted negative declaration status.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-34 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10155: Submitted by
Chester Peterson and Beverly Ann Compton, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000(SC)
to RS-7200(SC) to establish a 21-lot subdivision on property located west and
southwest of the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Avenida' Margarita.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-8, granted Reclassi-
fication No. 77-78-34, granted negative declaration status and approved Tentative
Tract No. 10155.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-35: Submitted by Daniel H. Ninburg and Marinacci-
Lindborg IX-XX, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 and RM-1200 to RM-1200 on
property located on the east side of State College Boulevard, north of Placentia
Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-10, granted Reclassi-
fication No. 77-78-35 and granted negative declaration status.
4. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-37: Submitted by the Masonic Building Association of
Anaheim, for a change in zone from CL to RM-1200 on property located at the east
terminus of Provential Drive.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-11, granted Reclassi-
fication No. 77-78-37 and granted negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1789: Submitted by Karl and Thea A. Kolb, to permit
a rest home for alcoholics on PD-C zoned property located at 125 S. West Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-12, denied Conditional
Use Permit No. 1789 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1795: Submitted by Vincent D. Joyce and Charles
Larry Culwell, to expand an existing pre-school with code waiver of maximum fence
height on CL zoned property located at 1241 South Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-13, granted Conditional
Use Permit No. 1795 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1796: Submitted by La Palma Partners, to permit an
automobile sales and leasing facility with code waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces on ML zoned property located at 3811 East La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-14, denied Conditional
Use Permit No. 1796 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
78-178
City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7; 1978; 1:30 P.M.
8. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 145: Request for initiation to study land use
alternative and circulation element.
me
II.
III.
IV.
VII.
Area northeast of Harbor Boulevard and Chapman Avenue.
Southwest corner of Rampart Street and Orangewood Avenue.
Northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Walnut Street.
Area east of Santa Aha Freeway, south of Katella Avenue, north of
Orangewood Avenue and west of State College Boulevard.
Circulation Element (Roadway Widths and City Standards)
PrevioUsly initiated by City Council: areas northeast of Haster
Street and Simmons Avenue.
Previously initiated by City Council: State College Boulevard in
the vicinity of South Street.
The City Planning Commission set March 9, 1978, 7:00 P.M. for a public hearing.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning
Commission became final.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-55(6) - SPECIFIC PLANS: Submitted by Ray Chermak, Dunn
Properties Corporation, requesting approval of specific plans for proposed CL zoned
property located at the northwest corner of La Palma and Magnolia Avenues.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, specific plans on
Reclassification No. 73-74-55(6) were approved, as recommended by the Planning
Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
108/142: ORDINANCE NO. 3823: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3823 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3823: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTIONS
3f48.020, 3.48.030 AND 3.48.040 OF TITLE 3, CHAPTER 3.48, AND SECTIONS 4.52.070
AND 4.52.080 OF TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.52 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING
NEW SECTIONS IN THEIR PLACE AND STEAD RELATING TO SOLICITORS.
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. 3823 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3824 THROUGH 3826: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 3824
through 3826, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3824: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (67-68-68(2), RM-1200)
ORDINANCE NO. 3825: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-19, RM-1200)
78-179
.City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3826: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-33, RM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3824 through 3826, both inclusive, duly passed
and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3828 THROUGH 3830: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 3828
through 3830, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3828: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING
THERETO SUBSECTION 14.32.190.1000 RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (no parking
on Pinney Drive, W/S, Bergh to Santa Ana Canyon Road)
ORDINANCE NO. 3829: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-37, CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 3930: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-55(9), ML)
Relative to ~rdinance No. 3828, Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know how many
"no parking" signs could be utilized, since a number of people were upset with
the large number of signs put up along Santa Ana Canyon Road.
City Manager Talley stated he would have an answer on the number.of signs by
nWxt week.
153: SELF-FUNDED HEALTH INSURANCE: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was
pleased with the report on self-funded health insurance which reflected a sizeable
savings to the City, and employees were very satisfied and complimentary relative
to the report.
138: INVITATION CLARIFICATION: Councilman Kott reported that he would not be
attending the forthcoming breakfast and luncheon at Disneyland since he was told
it was not possible for him to pay for his meal. Thus, he did not want to have
to declare a gift.
Both the Mayor and City Attorney Hopkins clarified that his (Kott's) attendance
constituted a civic duty and, therefore, no reporting would be involved. City
Attorney Hopkins further clarified that in any case, only gifts of $25 or more
were reportable.
123: UPDATE - JOINT FIRE TRAINING FACILITY: Councilman Kott asked Fire Chief
James Riley to give a status report on the Fire Training Facility presently under
construction.
78-180
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 7, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Fire Chief Riley briefed the Council on the Center which was a $2 million facility
in progress south of Anaheim Stadium near Orangewood and Rampart Street. The
Center was being built under a Joint Powers Agreement with Garden Grove and Orange
under an EDA Grant of $1.9 million. He then briefed the Council om his report
dated February 3, 1978, submitted to the City Manager which outlined the progression
of' construction of the facility scheduled for a formal opening approximately,
April 15, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office). He also explaimed that under
a secondary agreement, the communications system located in the basement of the
building would bring together into one network fire communications for the cities
of Garden Grove, Anaheim and Orange. Relative to funding for the Joint communica-
tions center, Chief Riley pointed out as explained in his report that the Authority
waa still holding to figures developed in 1977 wherein an ultinmte need of $84,500
was indicated. They hoped to reduce that figure to approximately $40,000 to
$45,000, representing Anaheim's share of six percent.
Chief Riley then relayed the fact that there was a difference of Opinion at the
last Authority meeting as to the date of the evaluation of the land on which the
facility was being constructed which is owned by Anaheim. The Joint Powers
Agreement was entered into in October 1976, with an estimate of value of the land
of $52,600 an acre. After the Joint Powers Authority was formed, a formal appraisal
was submitted in June 1977, setting the land value at $85,000 an acre. The Authority
discussed the matter at length because the issue was raised that the price be
prorated back to October 1976. In finality they did, however, move to adopt the
appraisal representing some $330,000 in land value as well as the percentage
apportionment previously agreed upon. Chief Riley noted that was the first time
there was any discussion where the Joint Powers took opposite views.
In concluding, he stated that they were looking to open the Training Facility
as an operating facility on the upper level on April 15, 1978, and it was a must
to open communications center on July 1, 1978.
1~2: PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS - FORMAL AND INFORMAL BIDS ON EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES:
Councilman Roth requested staff to prepare, at their convenience, a report relative
to Public Works projects when given to various contractors either for Jobs, service
or items being purchased, the deadline set for the contractor to deliver the package
and also am indication of the penalty in dollar amounts, if any, which were charged
if deadlines were not met and how those compared with one or two other cities and
perhaps some other companies in free emterprise. He was concerned that perhaps the
City did no~ charge enough penalties for late performance. He wanted to assure
that the City was competitive in their bidding amd also very competitive in any
late charges or penalties as assessed for mom-performance.
119: MISS ANAHEIM PAGEANT: Mayor Thom referred to a letter dated February 1, .1978
received from Fram Mauckin which he explaimed that she would run a M/ss Anaheim
Pageant in conjunction with her central Orange County Pageant at no cost to the
City or to the Chamber of Commerce. The thrust of her letter, however, was seeking
assurance from the Council that whoever was chosen would be the official Miss
Anaheim and used in the same capacity as in the past.
Mrs. Mauck confirmed that she was seeking no monies, but wanted the official endorse-
mant of the City Council of Miss Anaheim as explained in her letter.
78-181
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 7~ 1978~ ..1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council
affirmed any successful Miss Anaheim would be recognized as the official hostess
of the City. MOTION CARRIED.
Mrs. Mauck requested that the Council action be in writing and also explained
for Councilwoman Kaywood that she (Mauck) would be the chaparone for Miss Anaheim,
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Kott seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:32 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK