1978/02/28 78-246
City Hall, ~Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 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
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER-GOLF DIRECTOR: Thomas Liegler
FIRE CHIEF: James Riley
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE: Larry Sears
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendanCe to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend George Brown of the Melodyland Hotline Center gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Thom and approved
by the City Council:
"Easter Seal Month in Anaheim" - March 1978
PRESENTATION: Mr. Herb Leo, 209 Bellamy Street, Chairman of the City/County
Government Committee of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, read aloud a letter
dated February 17, 1978, from the President of the Chamber, Mr. Red Patterson,
relative to a new survey vehicle initiated by the Chamber called "Pipeline".
The-survey was being conducted on a six-month trial basis, with an issue being
sent each 60 days, containing five questions on vital issues, soliciting a favor,
oppose or no opinion answer. The letter further requested that the result of the
questions reported to the City Council become a part of the minutes. November
"Pipeline" results were submitted.
MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred for one week.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $756,277.59, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
153: RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME CLASSES: Councilman Thom
offered Resolution No. 78R-129 for adoption, as recommended in detailed memorandum
dated February 21, 1978, from the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-247
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-129: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME CLASSES, AND
SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-156 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO. (effective March 3, 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-129 duly passed and adopted.
153: CREATION OF NEW CLASSES TO IMPLEMENT TITLE CHANGES - LIBRARY: Councilman
Kott offered Resolution Nos. 78R-130 through 78R-132, both inclusive, for adoption,
as recommended in memorandum dated February 22, 1978, from the Personnel Director.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-130: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-703 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR JOB
CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GENERAL CITY
EMPLOYEES UNIT, AND CREATING THE JOB CLASSES OF LIBRARIAN I, LIBRARIAN II,
LIBRARIAN III, AND LIBRARY GRAPHIC ARTIST.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-131: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-726 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR STAFF
AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT, AND CREATING THE JOB CLASS OF LIBRARIAN IV.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-132: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-809 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR PROGRAM
MANAGERS, AND CREATING THE JOB CLASSES OF LIBRARIAN V-A, LIBRARIAN V-B, AND
LIBRARIAN V-C.
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-130 through 78R-132, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
115: SOIL TESTING SERVICES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER: (Converse
Davis Dixon Associates, Inc.) Relative to memorandum dated February 22, 1978, from
the City Engineer, recommending approval of an agreement with Converse Davis Dixon
Associates, Inc., for the subject testing, Councilman Roth asked if the required
services had been put out to bid, and if not, why not.
City Engineer James Maddox explained that they did not go out to bid on the services
because the subject firm had performed previous soil testing on the same site. He
also believed that it would be financially advantageous, from the City's standpoint,
to again have them perform the services.
78-248
C_iity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott questioned the City Attorney regarding the fact that he did not
see stipulated in the contract, specific penalties in terms of money and time
should a catastrophic incident take place. He thereupon, used the example which
occurred in Westminister where their new city hall began to sink.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that the agreement provided for insurance
and that the service would be performed as an independent contractor. If the
contractor was negligent, it would be a matter of the City bringing legal action
if no settlement could be agreed upon. He did not believe it possible to predict
the kind of penalty that would be involved because it was a matter for the courts
to decide. It was inherent in the agreement that the work would be performed in
a professional manner.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-133 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated February 22, 1978 from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution
Book. '
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-133: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE. CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CONVERSE DAVIS DIXON
ASSOCIATES, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT. (fee not to exceed $7,690; last phase to be completed by June 30, 1978)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-133 duly passed and adopted.
115: INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER: (Smith-Emery
ComPany) Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-134 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated February 22, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-134: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH SMITH-EMERY COMPANY AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (fee not to exceed
$67,863)
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-134 duly passed and adopted.
123: PROMOTION OF PLAY AT ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE: (California Club Golfers
Association) Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director, first ex-
plained for Councilman Roth that, in fact, the Golf Commission did approve the
proposed agreement at their meeting held on Thursday, February 23, 1978. Regarding
78-249
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
how the agreement might affect fees for senior citizens as questioned by Council-
woman Kaywood, Mr. Liegler further explained that the new promotional vehicle was
separate from the senior citizens program and their special rates would continue
as in the past, although the new proposed program might be a more economical method
of participation. Mr. Liegler then elaborated upon the several methods of promotion
to increase play at Anaheim Hills Golf Course now averaging 153 golfers a day as
the result of weekday promotion up from 39 golfers a day.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-135 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated February 22, 1978, from Mr. Liegler, approving an agreement with
the California Club Golfers Association to promote play at Anaheim Hills Golf Course.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-135: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA CLUB GOLFERS
ASSOCIATION AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER-GOLF
DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (to expire March 1, 1979)
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-135 duly passed and adopted.
175: STATUS OF "911" EMERGENCY TELEPHONE PROGRAM: City Manager Talley referred to
the report dated February 22, 1978, recommending that the report on the subject
program be received and filed.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to receive and file the February 22, 1978 report.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Seymour requested that the motion be amended
so that in addition to directing staff to receive and file the report, that the
Council be provided with a copy of the City's "911" plan before it was submitted
to the State by July 1, 1978, as outlined in paragraph 2 of the staff report.
Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Roth accepted the amendment.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion including the amendment. MOTION
CARRIED.
153: RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR PROGRAM MANAGERS AND CREATING THE POSITION CLASS OF
FISCAL SYSTEMS MANAGER: City Manager Talley introduced the subject matter whereupon
Mayor Thom asked for action to be delayed, and prior to discussing it, that an Executive
Session be held as a result of information he received just before the meeting.
Later in the meeting, he withdrew his request for an Executive Session and indicated
the matter would be discussed publicly at this time.
City Manager Talley explained that when the Director of Finance was hired, one of
the first things requested was a complete organizational analysis of all aspects of
the Finance Department. At that time, he recommended that the City establish a
controllership position titled Fiscal Systems Manager, his main concern being to
78-250
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar7 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
add a little financial expertise to the department and most important, to coordinate
the many accounting sections now existing in the City. When Mr. Ferrone made the
recommendation to him, Mr. Talley stated that Council Policy was not to add any
additional personnel to the budget during the current fiscal year, but he would
discuss the matter with the Council at such time as they could arrange for an
alternate position. Recently, there was a termination of a Senior Accountant
position and the Finance Director, therefore, again recommended that he be allowed
to institute what he considered a most desirable and major organizational change,
creating the position of a Fiscal Systems Manager and assign him the responsibility
not tantamount to, but effectively an assistant finance director. The major concern
was to insure uniformity in fiscal accounting procedures and also in reporting to
the central staff since problems had arisen in past years in making certain everyone
was keeping records in the same manner. Now that the City received an unqualified
audit report, he considered it in the best interest of the City to establish the
position.
Councilman Seymour stated he was speaking against the request for the following
reasons: as the report dated February 14, 1978, from the Finance Director indicated,
and as the City Manager articulated, the supposed reasons for the creation of the'
position was improved efficiency, more equitable distribution of work provided and
improved training of the accounting staff and for accounting personnel required by
Mafis II and III. It had been his understanding and the Council had been led to
believe by the City Manager that Mafi$ II and III were going to create economies and
efficiencies. Now what was occurring was a growth of bureacracy through the creation
of the new position, and the City Manager was justifying it by saying he eliminated
another position now vacant. Councilman Seymour had a conversation with the City
Manager relative to the matter and he (Seymour) made it clear, in that private
conversation, that he did not agree with the creation of the new position because
he was firmly convinced that the City already had a filled position on staff and
that position was totally competent. Mr. Talley indicated to him in that conver-
sation, if the existing position that was currently filled was moved up and expanded,
the request could be met, but he (Talley) saw little possibility that the position
could handle the competency required of the position that he wanted. His conclusion,
therefore, was if the Director of Finance or the City Manager was unwilling to vacate
the existing currently filled position, rather than taking the position and'moving
it to the side, thus letting it exist at a cost to the taxpayers of the City, he
could not support the request.
Mr. Talley explained that if everything could be done exactly the way a management
theorist would envision it, there would possibly be alternatives. However, he was
faced with real life organizational and morale problems and the fact that people
could not be moved around at the whim of management when they had achieved status
with the organization. If he were to upgrade a position and downgrade another, the
difference would be approximately $6,000 a year or $500 a month more than what was
being recommended. That, in the view of City management, including the Director of
Finance, was not achievable and rather than continue operating a $3 million a week
business less than effectively, now that Council's policy had been met by not adding
any new people, it would be well worth the additional $500 a month to achieve what
he believed would be a significant management reorganization. He did not believe
that the Finance Department had been allowed to grow at the rate it should over the
last two and one-half years, and that one upgrade in the department in a key accounting
78-251
_City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
area was overdue. He conceded that he may have been derelict in not moving on
the matter sooner, but guided by the Council's mandate of no new staff, he did
not feel he had the opportunity to do it before this time. Otherwise, last year
when Mr. Ferrone was hired, the reorganization program would have been submitted
to the Council. He considered it to be a good recommendation, they were presently
achieving excellence in financial reporting and accounting procedures and for what
amounted to only a few dollars more with no additional staff, Council should support
the request.
Councilman Seymour stated that, in fact, the City had achieved excellence in account-
ing, and a commitment had been made to the Mafis system to supposedly make things
more efficient. If those facts were true, Councilman Seymour wanted to know why
there was a need for a higher paid position than in the past. In the conduct of
his personal business, he did not enjoy the luxury of being able to take a position,
move it sideways and keep it alive and going until that position was ready to retire
and subsequently bring in a new position to cover it. As responsible elected
officials, how could the Council say it was different in the bureacracy. He con-
cluded by confirming for the Mayor and Councilman Kott, that he.hoped to force a
resolution of the matter either by having the situation remain as at present or
eliminating the position.
Since Councilwoman Kaywood had not been informed relative to the subject matter
under discussion, she requested an Executive Session.
The Mayor emphatically denied the request since the press had questioned whether
or not the Council could have an Executive Session to discuss the matter. One
could be held regarding personnel; however, the personnel involved did not fall
within the scope of the Council, but within that of the City Manager's jurisdiction.
The matter under discussion was a position classification.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the legality.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that the Brown Act provided that the Council, in
Executive Session, may consider the appointment, employment or dismissal of a
public employee, but the mere creation of a position did not fall within that
exception permitted for Executive Session. Also, in the Attorney General's manual,
there was a section providing for the discussion in Executive Session of the salary
of a particular individual, his work history and the like, but just dealing with a
classification per se and not the individual, it would not be appropriate for an
Executive Session.
Councilman Kott stated he was in accord with Councilman Seymour's evaluation and
although he did not know the in-depth perspective in terms of capabilities, under
the circumstances, status quo should be maintained or the position eliminated with
advancement to the higher position. Otherwise, as Councilman Seymour articulated,
it seemed another assistant would be employed to do the work of the person who should
be doing it.
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and,recommended a two weeks' continuance of the
subject matter.
78-252
C_ity H?ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Further discussion followed, wherein Mr. Talley confirmed that, according to the
personnel rules of the City, there was no cause for any type of personnel action
if an employee refused an upgrade. Councilman Seymour emphasized, however, that
the alternative and main thrust of his opposition was that the position could be
eliminated, and the City Manager had the authority to do so. Mr. Talley thereupon
stated that in good conscience, he could not recommend removal of the position
resulting in the loss of all the service and intelligence contained therein when for
$500 a month it could be retained for some period.
Councilman Seymour then suggested that Mr. Talley could get by with the staff
presently in the department, and if that existing staff merited the accolades
he suggested, he could see no reason why they could not continue to provide those
accolades in the future. As well, if the Mafis system proposed, which the City
Manager recommended that the Council finance, was such a good system, he did not
see any justification for the new position.
Mr. Talley clarified management's position that for an extra $500 a month, he
believed they were achieving it. The fact that they had not added to the central
staff of the City in the accounting function while the City had gone through sub-
stantial growth, spoke well of their efforts in trying to do a job without adding
personnel. Further, they were not anticipating the use of consulting.assistants
in the accounting areas they previously had a great expense to the City as well as
the fact that although there had been a substantial increase in the workload as
a result of putting some of the recommendations made, such as fixed assets into
play, also spoke well of the Mafis system and accounting, because no staff was
added. Thus, while he would cheerfully withdraw his request if the Council would
not go along with it, he did not think the case could be made that they had not
tried to operate in a belt-tightening mode.
Councilman Seymour noted that in a memorandum dated February 14, 1978, from Personnel
Director Garry McRae, the total increase was $13,310, whereas Mr. Talley was using a
$6,000 figure.
Mr. Talley acknowledged the figure, but stated if the scope of the present position
was increased, the increase would be extremely reasonable; Councilman Seymour stated
Mr. Talley had not justified to his satisfaction where the scope of the present
position had to be increased. Mr. Talley explained that at present, they were not
coordinating the reporting in accounting of the City.
Councilman Seymour asked how much of an increase there would be if the position was
eliminated, not the requested position, but the existing position.
Mr. Talley did not know the exact figure, but he did not believe that a body could
be eliminated out of that function, and the Accounting Division could not do with-
out one more major accounting position.
Councilman Seymour then stated he believed Mr. Talley to be saying that despite the
fact that he made a recommendation for spending a vast amount on the Mafis system,
that the efficiency he previously stated would come about was not coming to fruition,
and more people were needed to run that system than the old system.
78-253
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley refuted that evaluation and instead confirmed he was saying they were
not adding to the accounting staff, but at this time he could not recommend re-
ducing it. He was being asked to cut one person from the central accounting staff;
Councilman Seymour confirmed that was true if, in fact, he wanted a new one.
Councilman Seymour offered a resolution of denial of the request, whereupon City
Attorney Hopkins explained that no action was necessary if the Council did not
wish to approve the resolution. Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to remove
the item from the Agenda. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
t23: AMENDMENT TO SAFETY MEMBERS RETIREMENT CONTRACT: Councilman Seymour offered
Resolution No. 78R-136 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated February 22,
1978, from the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-136: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (increase the 1959 Survivor
Benefit)
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-136 duly passed and adopted.
Personnel Director Garry McRae clarified for the Mayor that the report he requested
(see minutes of February 7, 1978) relative to obtaining the benefit for other than
Safety Members was filed with the Council a week prior. The provision was available
and the cost would be approximately one-tenth of one percent of payroll. There was
no communication from PERS on that issue because it was a matter of first determining
if the provision was available, as well as the estimated cost, since Council would
have to authorize the actuarial study.
174: FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE DISASTER RELIEF ACT: Councilman Seymour
offered Resolution No. 78R-137 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated
February 24, 1978, from the Chief of Police. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-137: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DESIGNATING FRANK J. MADDEN, JR. EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR, AS PRINCIPAL
DESIGNEE AND THORNTON E. PIERSALL, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, AS ALTERNATE DESIGNEE,
TO APPLY FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE DISASTER RELIEF ACT.
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-137 duly passed and adopted.
78-254
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
150: DETERMINATION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT
AREA - HISTORICAL MUSEUM: (Carnegie Library) Councilman Seymour offered Resolution
No. 78R-138 for adoption, designating City-owned property as an historical library,
research center and museum, as recommended in memorandum dated February 24, 1978,
from the Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-138: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DESIGNATING CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AS A HISTORICAL LIBRARY, RESEARCH CENTER
AND MUSEUM.
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-138 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 78R-139 for adoption, determining certain
public improvements to be of benefit to the project area as recommended in memoran-
dum dated February 24, 1978, from the Executive Director of Community Development.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-139: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO BE OF BENEFIT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA PROJECT AREA; DETERMINING THAT NO OTHER REASONABLE
MEANS OF FINANCING SUCH PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE; AND CONSENTING TO THE
PAYMENT BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO THE CITY OF PART OF THE COST OF
SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. ($50,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
Seymour ·
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-139 duly passed and adopted.
115: AMENDMENT TO CIVIC CENTER PROJECT ARCHITECTURAL AGREEMENT: City Attorney
Hopkins explained that his office received a communication dated February 24, 1978,
co-signed by Dan L. Rowland and Associates and Le Roy Rose and Associates requesting
an amendment to the Civic Center Architectural Agreement of August 9, 1977, specifi-
cally changing the joint venture project to proceed with the office of Dan L. Rowland
and Associates only; the Joint venture party having determined that it would be in
the best interest of the City to have the project proceed accordingly.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-140 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated February 27, 1978, from the City Attorney's office. Refer to
Resolution Book.
78-255
~.ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-140: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH DAN L.
ROWLAND AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-140 duly passed and adopted.
142: AMENDMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR SETTING PUBLIC HEARINGS: Councilwoman Kaywood
requested that Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.070, relative to all Planning
Commission actions be final on reclassifications, variances and conditional use
permits, and subsequently placed on a consent calendar be amended to stipulate
that any Council Member may request a hearing be set without the necessity for a
motion. She maintained that inasmuch as any citizen could request the setting of
a public hearing, the Council should have at least the same power to do so. When
she initially voted to adopt the ordinance making the decision of the Planning
Commission final in such matters, she did not intend for the Council to be bypassed.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved to amend Section 18.03.070 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, deleting the requirement for a motion and a majority vote of the
Council if a Council Member wishes to set a reclassification, variance or condi-
tional use permit for a public hearing. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated when the matter was discussed at the
Council meeting, it was clear that in bypassing the Council relative to zoning
cases, an overt attempt was being made for the Council to speed-up the entire
development process and this would now be a reversal. He was, however, amenable
to the proposed amendment.
Councilman Seymour stated that he believed the original intent of the change'was
to cut red-tape and move projects through that had conformed. Also, he did not
intend by that action for the responsible elected officials, the City Council,
to give away their authority or ability to request a public hearing as had
always been the case in the past. He thus concurred with Councilwoman Kaywood's
request since now, in order to have a public hearing set, it required a motion
and a majority vote of the Council.
The Mayor took exception only with the fact that it was claimed the initial
action occurred without the Council's understanding since he believed it to have
been perfectly understandable at the time.
Councilman Seymour questioned if that was so, why the Council continued setting
matters for public hearing under the former procedure until the City Clerk subse-
quently advised that in order to be in conformance with the change, a motion and
second was necessary.
The Mayor answered that he believed it to be quicker and no one challenged the
procedure.
78-256
.~it~ Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
After a brief discussion clarifying the matter, a vote was taken on the foregoing
motion by Councilwoman Kaywood. MOTION CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10223 - SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING: Councilman Seymour ex-
plained there was a situation where development at Pinney Drive and Santa Ana Canyon
Road cleared the Planning Commission and did not make the consent calendar for today's
Council meeting. Thus, by the time the Council met the following Tuesday, the action
of the Planning Commission would be final because of the lapse of the 15-day appeal
period. He, therefore, moved that the matter be set for a public hearing. Council-
man Thom seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood explained the subject Tract was one
she asked to be set for public hearing, but her motion failed to carry 4-1.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Seymour requesting that
Tentative Tract No. 10223 be set for a public hearing on March 21, 1978. MOTION
CARRIED.
123/142: REPAIR OF SLOPES IN WESTRIDGE TRACTS: Councilman Seymour referred to
memorandum dated February 27, 1978, from the City Manager, concerning slope problems
in the Westridge Tracts in Anaheim Hills which slopes were constructed under the old
Grading Ordinance. Some 21 property owners suffered damage from the recent rains
and were now at a loss to recourse. They did not know how to put the slopes back
or if they would be put back in conformance with the City's present ordinance. At
a homeowners meeting held February 23, 1978, which he attended as well as representa-
tives from the Planning Department and Engineering, the homeowners asked for direction.
Councilman Seymour stated he would bring the matter to the Council and although
private property was involved, the Council would be concerned as to how that private
property would affect public property--Nohl Ranch Road as well as other streets and
storm drain easements. Since the City was concerned relative to the slopes being
made safe, it was recommended that its own engineers, or on a contract with outside
engineers, investigate the matter on behalf of the City of Anaheim, advise the
property owners as to what would be necessary in order to insure that the slopes
were repaired properly, as well as being in conformance with the ordinance. ~The
estimated cost as indicated in the February 27, 1978 memorandum would be between
$8,000 and $10,000. Initially the City Attorney was opposed to the expenditure
as it could have been considered a gift of public funds; however, since the ultimate
concern was to protect public property, he thereafter confirmed there would be no
problem involved in proceeding. Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to expend a
maximum of $10,000 from the Council Contingency Fund to select engineers on behalf
of the City to advise property owners in the Westridge Tracts, how to properly repair
their slopes. Subsequently, after the homeowners paid for the correction, the engineers
would return to recheck the slopes to insure they were installed properly. Council-
man Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth asked if any effort was being made to require the property owners
to establish a homeowners association to maintain the slopes, thus acquiring the
responsibility in the future.
Councilman Seymour stated that Anaheim Hills was inviting the property owners in,
but at the subject meeting, he did not detect overwhelming support to join a group.
78-257
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
A brief discussion followed between Councilmen Seymour and Roth, wherein Council-
man Seymour explained that the intent of his motion was not to set a precedent,
but only to expend public funds for the protection of public property. He would
not support any expenditure relative to slope slippage without that qualification.
Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, explained that the homeowners association in
the Westridge Tract was formed prior to the Grading Ordinance and they had been
working for 4 years to get a master association to own the slopes. However, they
had never been planted properly and were extremely steep. Further, it would take
the agreement of all lenders, as well as 100 percent of the 322 homeowners to be
taken into the master association, of which less than half homeowners owned slopes.
A permanent solution was necessary and they would be proposing such a solution, but
it would take approximately two years to start a maintenance district and they had
not been required to do so at the outset by the City. Mrs. Hall continued that the
slippage of the slopes had almost totally filled all the storm drains and if the
rains continued, there would be flooding in areas not on the slopes, her property
included. The flotation drains on Tumbleweed Road were full of the slopes that
fell and they desperately needed help to clean them up. The situation was critical
and the drains running the length of the deep lots in the tract were pouring out
onto a dedicated street and there was nothing they could do about it. She believed
the solution to be the City's involvement when the slopes were replaced to insure
they were all to Code. Some slopes were graded under a County permit and not a
great deal of attention was paid to them. They had irrigation problems on the
big ridge and constant problems of substandard irrigation that could not be solved
with the builders.
Councilman Roth stated they had the same problem in his tract, Lake Summit, wherein
they spoke to the developer who stated he was required by the City to leave the
slope in its natural state. As a result, erosion was occurring because it was un-
planted. As well, the Fire Department would not allow anything to be planted within
20 feet above the slopes. He maintained there were other problems in the canyon than
those experienced in the Westridge Tract.
Mrs. Hall interjected that planning requirements had to be evaluated by the City be-
cause a number of these requirements had not been met all through Anaheim Hills,
and the Council was the only body that could bring about the necessary action.
Relative to the conflicting Fire regulations, Councilman Seymour suggested that
HACMAC review the matter and subsequently make recommendations to the Council;
Mrs. Hall stated they would very much appreciate that assignment.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, HACMAC was charged
with the assignment of investigating the possibility of conflicting fire regula-
tions relative to planting of slopes in the Westridge tract. MOTION CARRIED.
105: STAFF ASSISTANCE FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD: The Mayor announced that a Public
Utilities Board Member present in the Chamber requested to speak relative to a staff
problem.
Mr. Joseph White, 809 West Broadway, stated he was speaking for himself only, but
as a member of the Public Utilities Board (PUB). He thereupon requested that the
Board be given adequate staff in order to facilitate better communications between
the PUB and the City Council. He was concerned that when recommendations were
78-258
City Hall~ ..Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
received by the Council, they received only one opinion, that being the opinion
of the Board's Secretary, Mr. Gordon Hoyt. Specifically, he referred to the Board's
minutes and pointed to the example as indicated on their February 16, 1978 agenda,
item one, wherein approval of minutes was requested for the meetings of October 20,
November 3 and 17, 1977 thus being so old as to render them useless. He also
alleged they got nothing but censorship in what they received and what they generated
and the incident that prompted him to bring the matter to the Council's attention
involved a letter written to the Mayor from the Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission which he read. "I am enclosing the Energy Commission's
decision in the Sundesert exemption matter. Inasmuch as this decision affects
the electrical supply of your City, I would be happy to discuss it with you personally
at your convenience." The letter was written by Richard Maullin, Chairman of the
Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission. Mr. White emphasized
that although the Board received a vast amount of material from San Diego Gas and
Electric (SDG&E), participants in the Sundesert Nuclear Project, they never saw a
copy of the Maullin letter since it was sent to Mr. Hoyt, a copy of which he re-
ceived surreptitiously after the Board meeting of February 2, 1978. He maintained
that Mr. Hoyt did not want the Council or the Commission to get.confused with the
facts of the truth, but only wanted one side of the picture presented. At the PUB
meeting of February 16, 1978, Mr. White read the letter to the Board who voted 7-0
to ask the Mayor to ask Mr. Maullin to Anaheim to speak on the Nuclear Power Project.
Mr. White subsequently called the Mayor the next morning and told him of the Board's
vote, but to this date, the Mayor had not received any communication from Mr. Hoyt
relative to writing the letter of invitation. He was appalled by the delay and felt
it was time that something changed in the lines of communication between the Board
and the Council. Since decisions that had to be made were going to affect the City
for approximately 50 years in the future, it was important to look at both sides of
the issue. He maintained that it was not practical to say that Mr. Maullin was
against Anaheim or San Diego Gas & Electric, since on January 14, 1978, at the same
time the decision was made against Sundesert, Mr. Maullin wrote a letter to the De-
partment of Interior recommending the approval and need of the Intermountain Power
Project.
Upon questioning by Council Members Kaywood and Kott, Mr. White explained that the
Board did not authorize him to speak to the Council, but that he was, in fact,
speaking for himself. He did feel the need for secretarial assistance to expedite
Board minutes which he maintained should be available before the next meeting, as
they were the only means of communication between the Board and the Council outside
of Mr. Hoyt's opinion.
Mayor Thom explained that he was pleased to receive Mr. White's phone call relative
to the letter, but was reluctant to write the letter on his own, since he could be
accused of being biased which, he stated was true relative to the matter. He
waited five days after Mr. White's call and still received no word from the Board's
Secretary. He thereupon told the City Clerk he had been requested to write a letter
to Mr. Maullin inviting him to meet with him, the Council and the Public Utilities
Board. As he understood, the Board requested that an excerpt of the Board meeting
be contained in the body of the letter, and although he could have said no, thus
enabling the letter to be expedited, he was interested in seeing how long it would
take to get a response. He expressed his annoyance over what he considered to be
ineptness in trying to get a direct reply to a direct question through the Utilities
Department.
78-259
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The machinery only seemed to work good enough to deluge the Council with material
they did not need in exchange for direct answers to questions that they did need.
The simple words in the PUB motion needed to frame the letter had not yet reached
the City Clerk's Office and thus far, almost two weeks time had elapsed. He was
trying to emphasize, in his opinion, the sad state of the Utilities Department in
how they diligently attempted to subvert the Council, Commission and the people of
the City of Anaheim.
City Manager Talley was of the opinion that a Star Chamber proceeding was being
conducted since Mr. Hoyt was not present to respond to the allegations. He (Hoyt)
would not be available for the next Council meeting, but would be available there-
after. Mr. Talley stated that the Council was entitled to a response from not only
the Chairman of the Public Utilities Board, but also Mr. Hoyt since he had been
attacked. Thus, in a sense of justice and equity, he felt it would be appropriate
to have Mr. Hoyt respond, and in two weeks some dialogue with the constituted autho-
rity of the Commission and Mr. Hoyt could take place. If there was a problem, then
it should be resolved accordingly. He reiterated he was reluctant to continue the
discussion without such input. He also confirmed that the wording relative to the
PUB motion to be embodied in the letter to Mr. Maullin, would be provided immediately.
Councilman Kott spoke to the matter first addressing himself to the lateness of the
Board minutes which he believed was something that would not be tolerated by the
Council. It was obvious this aspect had to be directed. He also stated that al-
though it was true that Mr. Hoyt was not in town, it was his opinion that his
assistant should be able to substitute for him in his absence.
Councilman Seymour stated the way he viewed the situation, there were two problems:
(1) As one member of the PUB, Mr. White was stating that the minutes were slow in
getting done and more help was perhaps necessary and, further, he alleged that
subterfuge might be involved. If the majority of the Commission stated a similar
position, then he (Seymour) would be more than happy to take corrective action.
Also, if the Council, as a body, felt that without asking a majority opinion of
the Commission that unilateral action should be taken, he would have to consider
that on its individual merit. He reiterated his preference to hearing from the
majority of the PUB members. (2) Relative to the letter not being sent, he con-
curred with the Mayor's ire. He had received a copy of Mr. Maullin's letter and
was also aware of the Board's unanimous vote indicating their interest.
Councilman Seymour continued that he believed it appropriate to invite Mr. Maullin
to Anaheim, and that before the meeting was over today, a letter should be in the
mail to him. It was important to hear both sides of the issue, but conversely he
asked if anyone from SDG&E appeared before the Board to argue their side as well.
He recommended that a public meeting and debate be held represented by both sides.
Further discussion followed between Councilman Seymour and Mr. White revolving
around some of the questions Mr. White wanted answered relative to the generation
of power to insure that funds were expended properly. Councilman Seymour concurred
and reiterated that it was important both sides be told at a forum where the citizens
of Anaheim also had an opportunity to hear representatives for and against the Sundesert
Nuclear Project. Councilman Kott interjected that, in fact, the proponents of the ~--~
Project were constantly being heard through the Utilities Department, R. W. Beck
reports, studies and the like.
78-260
_City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Before concluding the discussion, Councilman Kott stated he did not have to have
a majority of the Commission tell him that more help was necessary because it was
self-evident, and if such assistance could be provided to committees such as HACMAC,
the Commission too, could be the recipient of such assistance. Councilman Seymour
was opposed to a precedent being set by becoming responsive to one member's request
which could affect an entire commission.
Mr. White stated at this time he did not want the Council to take action to give
the Board another person.
The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the meeting as requested
by Councilwoman Kaywood:
"KAYWOOD:
I just find this whole discussion ironic on energy and energy conser-
vation when the two men who are opposed to it keep the air conditioning
set at 50 degrees here.
KOTT:
THOM:
KOTT:
THOM:
Because that's what makes me feel comfortable and I don't want to come
here and feel uncomfortable. If you don't like it, well then, don't
come.
We should be so lucky.
That's as simple as I can make it.
Now we are going to have to...
SEYMOUR: Oh what a zoo.
KAYWOOD: I would like that little portion in verbatim.
KOTT:
Yeah, put it in verbatim, and also that it is coming from a fiscal
conservative to my left who votes for all the social entities that
go on here."
Councilman Seymour stated that his understanding of the action to be taken was a
letter would be sent to Mr. Maullin and one to San Diego Gas and Electric, inviting
them to Anaheim to speak.
Councilman Roth suggested that each representative speak for one hour on Sundesert
at other than a Council meeting; Councilman Seymour thereupon emphasized that he
would like to see a public meeting held at the Library, in the evening, so that the
community could get involved.
Mayor Thom stated that a special meeting would be called whenever the representatives
could attend, allowing one representative to speak first and then the other, subse-
quently opening the forum for questions and answers from the audience.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (2:50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:00 P.M.)
78-261
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1794: Submitted by Allen A.
and Hilda J. Hendry, to permit a fence contractor's storage yard on RS-A-43,000
zoned property at 3361 East Miraloma Avenue with code waivers of:
a) minimum front yard setback
b) enclosure of outdoor uses
A verbal request for withdrawal of the application was received by the authorized
agent, with a written confirmation to follow.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the request for
withdrawal of the application for conditional use permit was approved. MOTION
CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - UNIFORM FIRE CODE~ 1976 EDITION: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilman Seymour, staff's request for a one-week continuance to con-
sider adoption of the Uniform Fire Code, 1976 Edition, was approved. MOTION
CARRIED.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-9A: In accordance with application filed
by James W. McAlvin, Anaheim Memorial Hospital, public hearing was held on proposed
abandonment of a portion of an existing public street com~nonly known as Hermosa
Drive, located in Tract No. 1691, north of La Palma Avenue, west of West Street,
pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-101, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and
notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer was submitted dated January 10, 1978, recormmending
that the abandonment be approved subject to three conditions:
1. The applicant will leave the existing driveway in Lot 20 of said tract to
provide for additional turn around area for trash and emergency vehicles.
2. Applicant will construct at no cost to the City, a new sewer manhole at thg
easterly terminus of the remaining portion of Hermosa Drive.
3. Applicant will, at no cost to the City, install street improvements required
to provide for the proposed new cul-de-sac area and submit street improvement
plans to the City Engineer for review and approval.
Councilman Seymour stated that he would abstain from the hearing because of a
potential conflict of interest, since his firm performed a small amount of property
management services for the hospital itself.
Councilman Kott abstained due to the fact that he was a renter in the medical
building adjacent to the hospital.
Councilman Roth asked if his membership in the "Double Eleven Club", wherein he
paid yearly dues, presented any conflict; City Attorney Hopkins indicated there
would be none.
The Mayor asked if the Agent for the Hospital wished to be heard.
Mr. Randy Bosch, Dan L. Rowland & Associates, architects for the hospital, was
present to answer any questions.
78-262
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how many extra parking spaces would be gained by the
project.
Mr. Bosch stated that 80 parking spaces would be added for the Hospital. The
abandonment of the street was a condition of the approval of the reclassification
of zoning on two lots the hospital owned fee simple which boarded the subject por-
tion of the street and would help ease the parking problem as the next phase of the
reconstruction of the hospital took place.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there
being no response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination of
the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for
an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. Councilmen Seymour and Kott abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-141 for adoption, approving Abandonment
No. 77-9A, as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-141: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
~t~~DE~I'NG-~-~A~I~N-~':D-ABANDGI~'~{~-~h~ CEK~kI-~FUBL~C-5~RViCE-~SEHENT~r--~TT--~,
i,~k~r-ra~s~-~i-v~-m~tq~-~-~m-Bei-m~-Aver~u~cst~-Wes-t-~~ DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN
PUBLIC STREET(S) SHOULD BE ABANDONED AND ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS PERCEDENT TO SAID
Roll Call Vote: ABANDONMENT (Hermosa Drive)
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-141 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-12A: In accordance with application
filed by the Fire Department, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of
a portion of an existing public alley located south of Broadway Street, east of
Melrose Street, due to traffic safety hazards, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-102,
duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance
with law.
Report of the City Engineer was submitted, dated January 13, 1978, recommending
approval of the abandonment subject to the reservation of a public utility ease-
ment as required by the Pacific Telephone Company.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and wished to
be heard.
Fire Chief James Riley was present to answer any questions. He then elaborated on
the request for abandonment, the intent of which was to vacate the alley immediately
to the rear of Station Headquarters, presently separating the Station from parking
property to the south. He took the precaution of notifying all residents by letter
and included a diagram plan asking them to respond to him personally. Four or five
positive comments were received indicating no great concern on the part of the local
residents.
78-263
...C. ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ !978~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there
being no response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 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.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-142 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 77-12A, as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-142: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF~GgR-T~gI~-~-I~B~-I~--ggR~-I~E--~T-~-~--<-7-7~-g2~A-,
oOl~-~l--m~t-h-~f--gr~-S~t~-~a~t-~f-~l-r~--f~t~t~ THAT CERTAIN UNNAMED
UTH OF BROADWAY, EXTENDING EASTERLY FROM MELROSE STREET.
1 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-142 duly passed and adopted.
150: REJECTION OF BIDS - BROOKHURST COMMUNITY CENTER~ STAGE III~ LANDSCAPE
IMPROVEMENTS: (Account No. 16-4309-812-18-0000) Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 78R-143 for adoption, rejecting all bids on the subject improve-
ment, and authorizing City forces to accomplish the work, as recommended in
memorandum dated February 22, 1978, from the Parks, Recreation and Arts Director.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-143: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE 16TH DAY OF
FEBRUARY, 1978, FOR THE BROOKHURST COMMUNITY CENTER LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS,
ACCOUNT NO. 16-4309-812-18-0000.
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-143 duly passed and adopted.
167: AWARD OF CONTRACT - TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING MODIFICATION -
BROADWAY AND EUCLID STREET: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-144 for
adoption, awarding a contract in accordance with the recommendations of the City
Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-264
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-144: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP-
MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND
PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING MODIFICATION AT THE INTER-
SECTION OF BROADWAY AND EUCLID STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
13-4309-713-16-0263. (Steiny & Company, $48,000)
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-144 duly passed and adopted.
150: PERALTA CANYON PARK - PHASE II~ LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT: On motion by Council-
woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, action on the sUbject improvement was
continued for one week as requested in memorandum dated February 22, 1978, from
the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF SERVICES - INSTALLATION OF DECKING AND GUARD RAILS ON BRIDGE #1]
AT THE DAD MILLER MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the low bid of Seale & Seale was accepted and services
authorized in the amount of $5,842, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing
Agent in his memorandum dated February 17, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - CLASS 52 DUCTILE IRON PIPE: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the sole bid of Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe
Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $15,337.55, including
tax, as recommended in memorandum dated February 22, 1978, from the Purchasing
Agent. MOTION CARRIED.
175: PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - 1976/77 REPORT TO BONDHOLDERS - WATER SYSTEM
INSPECTION: (Toups Corporation - agreement not to exceed $1,000) Mr. Larry
Sears, representing the Water Engineering Manager, explained that proposals were
not solicited relative to the preparation of the subject report. Based on pro-
posals received in 1972, ranging from $800 to $4,000, and considering the good
results experienced with Toups in preparing all five previous reports, the recom-
mendation was considered to be in the best interest of the City.
MOTION: Councilman Kott stated that since he personally had seen a great disparity
between bids, as much as 200 percent, it would be more in the best interest of the
City to go out to bid on the preparation of the report and he thereupon moved that
the request be denied and solicitation be initiated with receipt of at least three
bids. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, it was clarified that the cost of the report would not
exceed $1,000. Councilwoman Kaywood was of the opinion that more money could be
spent processing the item through the bid system. Only a minimum expenditure was
involved with a record of good experience on the corporation proposed to perform
the service.
78-265
C_ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
City Manager Talley stated that a relatively modest amount would be involved in
going out to bid, but considering the Council's policy of sending everything
through the Utilities Board, approximately $300 to $400 worth of staff time, along
with the solicitation would be necessitated.
Councilman Roth stated that if it took approximately 50 percent of the proposed
expenditure to go out to bid, he would have to support the recommendation of the
Water Department at this time.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Kott and failed to carry
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kott and Thom
Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
None
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the Public Utilities Board did make the
recommendation and she thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-145 .for adoption,
as recommended in memorandum dated February 17, 1978, from the Public Utilities
Board. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-145: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH TOUPS CORPORATION CONCERNING WATER SYSTEMS INSPECTION
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (to be completed
by March 15, 1978)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
Kott and Thom
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-145 duly passed and adopted.
108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: On motion by Councilman
Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, Application for Solicitation of Charity Funds
submitted by the Purple Heart Veterans Rehabilitation Services, Inc., for door-to-
door solicitation of useable household items and clothing for a period of 60 days
was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Thom, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed.
a. 117:
b. 105:
c. 105:
Monthly report for January 1978 - Treasurer.
HACMAC - Minutes of January 31, 1978.
Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of February 15, 1978.
78-266
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
2. 108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES AND DINNER DANCING PLACE PERMITS: The following
permits were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Police:
a. Dinner Dancing Place Permit for The Silver Fox Supper Club, 1168 South State
College Boulevard, for dancing Monday through Saturday, 9:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M.
(Parviz F. Ghaffari, applicant)
b. Amusement Devices Permit for pinball machines, T.V. video games and air
hockey at the Anaheim Fun Center, 884 West Lincoln Avenue. (Reagan Paul Cognata
and Kevin Laurin Parkes, applicants)
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Kott offered Resolution Nos. 78R-146
through 78R-148, 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.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-146: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: SANTA FE-ANAHEIM INDUSTRIAL
PARK STORM DRAIN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 10-4309-726-16-0905 &
11-4309-720-16-4004. (Bebek Construction Company)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-147: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE
CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: BARRIER FREE ANAHEIM
--AREA 2, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PROJECT ACCOUNT NO. 12-4309-707-16-0000; APPROVING
THEDESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids
to be opened March 30, 1978, 2:00 P.M.)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-148: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC ALLEY AND
FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (public hearing, March 21, 1978, 3:00 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 Nos. 78R-146 through 78R-148, both inclusive duly
passed and adopted.
78-267
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
164: CALL FOR BIDS - TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING - INTERSECTION OF
BROADWAY AND GILBERT STREET: (Account No. 10-4309-771-16-0263) Councilwoman
Kaywood referred to a conversation that took place on the subject traffic signal
when development in the area was being discussed. She questioned how there was
a determination that a traffic signal should be placed at Broadway and Gilbert,
specifically if there were requests from the neighborhood. The intersection
presently had 4-way stop signs.
City Engineer James Maddox stated the determination was made through normal traffic
warrants, site distance and collision reports. He was not certain that requests
had been received from the neighbors.
Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that two years prior, the residents said they did
not want a traffic signal at that location.
Councilman Seymour differed with Councilwoman Kaywood's recollection of the matter
and noted that two years prior, when the Lincoln-Gilbert Project came to-Council,
it was denied. At that time, the people in the vicinity of Lincoln and Gilbert
adamantly requested the installation of stop lights. They were saying they already
had more traffic than they could handle and a light was necessary. Mr. Maddox
recalled the same.
Councilwoman Kaywood did not agree, and remembered that the residents stated they
did not want stop lights installed.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-149 for adoption, as recommended by
the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-149: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC-
TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY
LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF BROADWAY AND GILBERT STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 10-4309-771-16-0263; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS,
AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED
PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened March 23, 1978, 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
· he Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-149 duly passed and adopted.
144: ORDINANCE NO. 3832: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3832 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3832: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTIONS 2.12.060,
2.12.070, 2.12.080, 2.12.090, 2.12.100, AND 2.12.110 TO TITLE 2, CHAPTER 2.12 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES.
78-268
Ci~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3832 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3833: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3833 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3833: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (64-65-64(2), CL)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3833 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3834: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3834 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3834: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-7(2), CL)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3834 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3835: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3835 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3835: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-42, 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 No. 3835 duly passed and adopted.
78-269
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3836 AND 3837: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 3836
and 3837 for first reading.
108/144: ORDINANCE NO. 3836: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING
SECTION 3.44.010 OF TITLE 3, CHAPTER 3.44 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ADDING A NEW SECTION IN ITS PLACE AND STEAD RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES.
(apartment houses with five or more apartments)
ORDINANCE NO. 3837: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-55(10), ML)
RECESS: Councilman Roth moved to recess to 7:30 P.M. for a rehearing on Conditional
Use Permit No. 1768. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
(4:48 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour,
the meeting was reopened at the request of Councilman Kott, so as to present
another item for consideration. MOTION CARRIED. (3:50 P.M.)
167/169: REQUEST - BIKE LANES AND SCHOOL SIGNS - NOHL RANCH ROAD AND SERRANO AVENUE:
Councilman Kott explained that representatives were present to discuss the subject
matter.
Mrs. Eloise Gunther, 536 South Circulo Lazo, spoke on behalf of the children and
parents of Anaheim Hills Elementary School, to request that school zone warning
and traffic control signs as well as bicycle lanes be installed on Serrano Avenue
and Nohl Ranch Road adjacent to Anaheim Hills School. It was their belief that
such action would serve to remind drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians of the in-
creased traffic dangers associated with school children. Specifically, they wanted
to have bicycle lanes installed on both sides of Nohl Ranch Road and on Serrano
Avenue, for at least a distance of one mile from the school with properly marked
school crossing signs across Serrano and Nohl Ranch Road and school warning signs
on Serrano and Nohl Ranch Road.
Mrs. Gunther explained that Anaheim Hills Elementary School opened in NovembJr of
1977 and now had approximately 480 students. They felt they needed the things
they were requesting to protect the safety of those school children. One bicycle
accident had already occurred on Serrano where a child, in the center of the road,
was struck on the way to school. The safety measures requested would help to pre-
vent another such accident. Mrs. Gunther thereupon submitted a petition with
approximately 400 signatures of residents of the area in favor of the safety measures.
Councilman Kott referred to the response to the request already issued dated
February 27, 1978, from the Traffic Engineer.
Councilman Roth gave some background on the situation, explaining for Mrs. Gunther
that he too lived in the Canyon and on last Sunday afternoon, the subject petition
reached his door. He identified himself as a Council member and stated that he
would take a copy of the petition to the City beforehand to ascertain what could be
done if anything in order to save time. The reply, dated February 27, 1978, referred
to by Councilman Kott, was given to him just prior to today's meeting. Councilman
Roth then read paragraphs 2 through 5, the essence of which pointed to the fact that
if bicycle lanes were provided, travel lanes would be constricted below capacity,
78-270
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
resulting in congestion and high accidents, and, as well, any reduction along the
reference streets could result in the withdrawal of County participation funds
for the entire City since the streets were listed on the Orange County arterial
highway plan and financed by the Arterial Highway Finance Program (AHFP). Council-
man Roth also emphasized the fact that school crossing signs and school speed
limit signs for Serrano Avenue had already been ordered and would be installed the
following week. Thus, the residents were getting 50 percent of what they were re-
questing. Relative to the accident to which Mrs. Gunther referred, he checked the
accident report and found that it occurred one-half block away from the subject
intersection and it was the child who turned into the automobile. As well, there
were many people who were equally concerned about the intersection of Serrano
Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road, and they wanted a crossing guard at that location. He
stated the crossing guard had already been approved; Mrs. Gunther confirmed that
the guard had been at the location for one week.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, responded to Mrs. Gunther's questions relative
to bicycles lanes, explaining that there was no space for bicycle lanes on the
present pavement width along Serrano Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road outside of the
designated traffic lanes. At the present time, traffic flow was low because con-
struction had not yet been completed and, therefore, the centerline was painted
on both streets. The situation would change shortly and there would be four lanes,
two in each direction, which was all the width available according to hillside
standard designs which provide for travel lanes only along the two streets. Further,
there would be no parking on any arterial highways in the Canyon area except at the
parking bays constructed to facilitate emergency parking. If any reduction was made
due to the installation of bicycle lanes, travel lanes would have to be sacrificed
and in so doing, would preclude the use of two travel lanes which would complicate
the problem considering the projected high traffic volumes expected as a result of
population growth. He noted that bicycles were legally permitted and safe in any
curb lane on any street within the State of California unless specifically prohibited.
In concluding, Mr. Singer stated the best practice was to teach safety in riding
and walking, as well as the resultant consequences in the disregard for safety.
It was the responsibility of the parents and schools; the Police Department presently
had a program of education covering these areas. Basically, the responsibility
was that of the child who at some point had to take the responsibility for his
actions. He did not believe that bicycle lanes would make the situation any safer
and, in fact, the largest bicycle club, Wheelmen of America, were opposed to any
installation of bicycle lanes because they created problems and hazards that had
not been there previously.
Mayor Thom explained that striping for bicycle lanes in the Hill and Canyon area
was problematical because of development criteria on the width of streets. He,
however, had long been a champion of bicycle lanes; they did give a measure of
guidance to children as to the safe portion of the road in which to ride. He
wanted to see the City's bicycle lane plan fully implemented an~ hoped that it
would be done in the future.
At the conclusion of a brief discussion relative to the matter, Mrs. Gunther asked
if a written report could be provided, by the Traffic Engineer, that she could relay
to the people who worked diligently and were interested in the problems discussed,
particularly statistics relative to bicycle lanes; Mr. Singer stated he would provide
that information.
78-271
.City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to 7:30 P.M. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:05 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (7:30 P.M.)
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
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1768 - REHEARING: Application by
Robert W. and Katherine M. Hughart, to permit private tutoring services on RS-5000
zoned property located at 1335 South Ashington Lane.
The environmental impact report finding was previously ratified by the City Council
as being categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
The decision of the Planning Commission, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1768
was appealed by Sister Lucille Bernier, Agent for the Applicant, and public hearing
scheduled for January 24, 1978, at the conclusion of which the findings of the City
Planning Commission were reversed, thus granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1768.
A request for rehearing was filed by Donald A. Graf and the rehearing scheduled
this date.
The Mayor requested that since Mr. Graf asked for the rehearing, that he be the
first to speak to the matter.
Mr. Donald Graf, 1340 Ashington Lane, first referred to a 9-page document filed
earlier, outlining a number of issues which he would not attempt to cover in his
presentation, which document was a letter dated February 22, 1978, from Capr~tz &
McDonald, attorneys representing the residents in opposition to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1768 (made a part of the record). He stated that a Mr. Saunders of
the aforementioned firm would elaborate on the issues contained therein later in
the meeting.
Mr. Graf then referred to the prior hearing before the City Council (see minutes
of January 24, 1978) and the flood of letters and petitions submitted by those in
favor of the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 1768, allowing Sister Bernier
to continue her tutoring services. After the hearing, Mr. Graf researched the
matter further and found that, of the 35 letters submitted in behalf of the CUP,
only two letters of the 35 were received from current students. He highlighted
the facts presented by a pictorial display which included three maps and a diagram--
the first map was keyed to the geographic location within an 8-mile circle of those
who had written letters in favor in relation to the location of the subject property
also indicating the location of current students designated by "S", the location of
former students designated by "FS", those who gave an endorsement to the service
designated by "E" and teachers or former teaching associates designated by "T".
Previously there was a statement made in summary of the petition filed in behalf
of the CUP that 95 percent of the signatures contained therein were located within
78-272
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
300 feet of the subject residence as defined by the Planning Commission. This
seemed unusual to them because the residents submitted a petition which was very
solid within Ashington Lane; 14 of 17 houses were opposed.
Working from a City map to scale showing the property, Mr. Graf had color coded
the map to show those who favored the permit in blue, those against in red and
red striped those who were in favor of a rehearing. Likewise, some of those
petition signers were below the subject area and some above 1,500 to 1,800 feet
away.
Mr. Graf further explained from a diagram what he considered to be the heart of
the matter involving just those properties within the 300 foot radius--the color
coding devised, showed that of the residents/homeowners, 24 out of 57 houses were
opposed to the CUP and a number wanted a rehearing. In closing at the previous
meeting, Counsel for the proponents stated that of the 95 signatures submitted on
the petition, 96 percent were in the 300-foot radius when in reality, there were
only 6. In the petition submitted just before the Council hearing containing 85
signatures, they could identify 35 as being opposed who were within the 300-foot
radius and approximately 35 more asked for a rehearing and they were inclined to
be against. Thus, the issue was one-sided and the diagram clearly demonstrated
that sentiment was in opposition, refuting the figures previously presented by
the petitioners' attorney.
Mr. Graf then also spoke to the following matters which he considered to be new
evidence along with related comments: (1) he referred to and read excerpts from
a letter dated February 15, 1978, from Mr. Jack Harris, realtor associate with
Herbert Hawkins Realtors, a real estate agent for 20 years, advising that, in his
opinion, the activity in progress relative to a home on Ashington Lane being used
for a school would definitely depreciate other residences on Ashington Lane and
full disclosure of such activity would have to be made known to perspective buyers
in the neighborhood.
(2) He spoke to a Dr. Martin Baren, in Tustin, relative to the availability in
Orange County of educational assistance for children with learning disabilities;
Dr. Baren having just completed a book in the field supported by 15 years of
experience on the subject. The main points of the conversation he (Graf) had
with Dr. Baren included the fact that the California School System provided
programs for the learning handicapped child, the main thrust being that previously
there was an outcry of those favoring the CUP that no facilities or programs were
available. Also, State monies were now available for learning problems, and the
schools were searching for children to help in this way. As well, a public law
enacted in 1975 was a mandate to the schools to search out these children.
(3) Relative to the question of whether the service was tutorial or actually a
school, by way of a telephone call to the Loyola Marymount Orange campus (routed
through St. Joseph Hospital's switchboard), he inquired as to the status of the
Marymount Reading Center. Subsequently, they connected him to the Mother House
receptionist regarding the status of the Center, and he was told that the Center
was still open, but it was now located on Ashington Lane and it was a non-sectarian
school. They regarded it as a school and the person answering confirmed the word
school when Mr. Graf asked for clarification.
78-273
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
(4) In answer to Councilman Roth, Mr. Graf stated that he had changed his mind
regarding the statement he made at the meeting of January 24, 1978, that he would
have no objection if only 6 students were involved in a 24-hour period. In the
interim, he looked into the question left unanswered at the Planning Commission
hearing as to other alternative facilities; that being where facilities in a local
church or something of that nature had been considered. However, since the schools
were looking for such children and monies were available, and in view of some of
the comments that their attorney would make about the program, facilities seemed
to be available. Thus, he had changed his mind since January 24, 1978.
Mr. Ronald Rus, 1 City Boulevard, Suite 1120, Orange, Attorney for the agent of
the applicant, stated that they did not.prepare any substantial presentation for
the meeting since it was their feeling that the Council made its decision at the
previous hearing and that the rehearing was granted on new evidence to be submitted.
If there was new evidence, he was anxious that it be presented and he would then
like to make comments in rebuttal. He hoped that any reconsideration would be made
with the burden on those purporting to submit the evidence.
Mr. Gary Saunders, Attorney, Associate with Capretz & McDonald, 18552 MacArthur
Boulevard, Irvine, stated he was representing the 84 residents who signed the
petition in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 1768, living around and on
Ashington Lane. He first stated that at the last meeting, representatives for the
proponents were allowed to speak twice and today, Counsel for the proponents was
being granted the opportunity to reappear with rebuttal arguments. He, therefore,
requested to come back and close all of the arguments of the proponents as well as
the opportunity to make a summation.
The Mayor denied Mr. Saunders request and further stated that the final summation
was always given by the applicant.
Mr. Saunders first referred to a letter dated February 13, 1978, prepared by
Counsel for Sister Bernier (made a part of the record) which concerned him be-
cause of the allegations of harassment by certain members of the Ashington Lane
community contained therein. Likewise, members of the community who opposed the
CUP had been harassed with threatening and annoying phone calls at all hours, as
well as other like incidents. Mr. Saunders emphasized that any allegations made
against neighbors who opposed this CUP were false and unwarranted. He elaborated
further on some of the allegations and then urged the Council not to be swayed by
allegations of harassment from either side, but to focus on the material issues
such as, (1) conducting the school in a residential house, (2) the need for such
a facility at the present location, (3) available alternatives and programs, (4)
inaccuracy inherent in the CUP, (5) zoning problems created and (6) the economic
impact and traffic congestion upon the neighborhood. They did not dispute the
qualifications and good intentions of Sister Bernier nor to the running of an
educational facility, but in a proper location.
The Mayor reminded Mr. Saunders that the rehearing was requested and granted on
the basis that new evidence was involved as outlined in the four points listed in
the letter dated January 31, 1978, submitted by Mr. Graf. He asked that Mr. Saunders
confine his presentation to those points as, thus far, he maintained no new evidence
had been presented.
78-274
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Saunders then cited several sections of the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC)
under Title 18, covering procedures for obtaining a CUP which section set forth
required showings of fact which must be made by the City Council in the form of
a resolution before it could authorize a CUP. He contended that no such findings
of fact were adequately made by the City Council in its reversal of the Planning
Commission's denial of the CUP. Therefore, Conditional Use Permit No. 1768 was
not issued in compliance with the AMC, and it was upon those findings of fact the
new evidence was being introduced. The AMC required the following--that the proposed
use not adversely affect the adjoining land owners; that it not put undue burden
on surrounding streets, and that it not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Mr. Saunders maintained
that, in fact, the CUP had adversely affected adjoining land values as evidenced
by the letter from Mr. Harris relative to real estate values; that traffic patterns
and flow had been adversely affected because of traffic increase and congestion
brought about by the additional traffic coming into the area at peak times and the
peace, health, safety and general welfare had been affected as evidenced by the
allegations of harassment from both sides. Those findings were not made at the
time of the granting of the CUP by the City Council, and could not be made now in
view of the foregoing.
Mr. Saunders then relayed the following: The Code further required the finding
that the size and shape of the proposed site was adequate and, futher, that it
required no building could be used for a school unless every boundary line of
the property which it bordered in a residentially zoned area was setback at
least 15 feet. Their investigation revealed that the subject property was only
5 feet from the side boundary lines, thus it did not comply with the 15-foot
setback requirement and, as such, the CUP could never be granted. Their investi-
gation also discovered inaccuracies in the supportive papers filed by proponents
of the CUP, especially indicating a deficiency of special educational programs in
the Anaheim community. The matter was reviewed with the City of Anaheim Superin-
tendent of Schools and Director of Special Education, and both denied any deficiency.
They were, however, aware of Sister Bernier's talents and expressed an interest in
working out a program with her that would benefit the students of Anaheim and allow
her teaching skills to be brought to them. As well, a review of the 1977-78.
Directory of Special Education Programs within Orange County, Part III, showed that
Anaheim and the School District was very active and well represented in both quantity
and quality of special education programs. Thus, the claim of deficiency did not
stand up to close scrutiny. Also, proponents of the subject facility had not in-
dicated any desire to cooperate with the School District, and the program was not
aimed at servicing the Anaheim area.
As previously shown, a survey of former students revealed that the majority were
from areas other than Anaheim and a recent check with the Department of Motor
Vehicles as to the owners of vehicles dropping-off and picking-up current students
were also not from Anaheim, but the Fullerton and Brea community. Further, relative
to hours of operation, students were arriving earlier than the 9:00 a.m. time stated
at the previous meeting, thus increasing congestion on the streets at a peak time.
In concluding and with the Council's permission, Mr. Saunders asked all the members
of the Ashington Lane community who were present in the Chamber and opposed to Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1768, to stand. A large number were in evidence and Mr.
Saunders wanted the Council to take special notice of the vast number of residents
78-275
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
within the 300-foot radius of the subject property who objected to the granting of
the CUP. He also submitted signatures of 13 additional residents of the community
who could not be present at the meeting, but wished to go on record in opposition.
He stated, in closing, that a vote against Conditional Use Permit No. 1768 was not
a vote against Sister Bernier or her school, but a vote for retaining the integrity
of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the zoning provisions therein, and the residential
concept of the City of Anaheim.
Mr. Jerry Kent, 2102 West Palais, stated at the last meeting, testimony given indi-
cated that children attending classes at the subject property were being car-pooled
to prevent congestion and did not arrive until 9:00 a.m. Mr. Kent then showed a
three minute tele-movie film taken on Ashington Lane on January 31, 1978, showing
morning drop-off of the students and some pick-ups. Seven cars delivered the
children; six cars contained one child and the seventh had two. The first car
arrived at 7:55 a.m. and neighborhood children were in the street going to public
school. "U" turns were still being negotiated contrary to statements made at the
January 24, 1978 meeting that this would no longer occur.
Mrs. Ann Schwartz, 1324 Ashington Lane, pointed out that whereas most of the educa-
tional needs of children were fixed into programs already existing, for the educa-
tionally handicapped, the school ascertained how many children had the special need
and then funds were apportioned accordingly. It was not a matter of a program being
full with no room for these children. She also concurred that Sister Bernier was
extremely qualified, and the School District could avail themselves of her service
and knowledge. A home in a residential neighborhood was not the best environment
for students, nor was it the best situation for the neighborhood at large.
Mr. Walter Perkins, 1346 Ashington Lane, stated that his greatest concern related
to the safety factor involved and particularly the consequences involved in case of
a fire at the residence upon which he elaborated. He wanted to know if anyone had
checked out those aspects and, if not, that it be done because of the real dangers
involved. He also questioned the Council as to their reason for granting the CUP;
nobody wanted it, it was not safe, and the Planning Commission said no. He stressed
the neighborhood was theirs and if the Council decided to grant the CUP again, they
were making a grave error.
Mr. Bryant, 2116 West Palais, urged the Council to listen to the people because
they did not want the school.
Mrs. Barry Linn, 1320 South Ashington Lane, explained that although she had much
admiration for Sister Bernier and the work with which she was involved, she believed
Sister Bernier completely ignored the feelings of the residents in the neighborhood.
The permit would set a precedent and open the door for other uses, lower property
values, increase traffic and the resultant neighborhood problems would create a
less desirable place in which to live. The desires of one neighbor should not inter-
fere with the wishes of the majority. Sister Bernier was an asset to the
neighborhood--as a resident, but not as a school operator.
Mr. Rus then made his summation and rebuttal and first stated that, in his opinion,
much of what was stated was an affront to the City Council because the evidence
presented was the same as that presented at the previous meeting, but the inference
78-276
City. Ha.ll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
was that the Council evaluated it wrong the first time. As an example, he referred
to the demographic distribution of letters which he presumed the Council had taken
into consideration previously as well as the supposition that property values would
decline which he did not believe valid. Relative to the word of experts as stated
by Mr. Graf that special education programs were available, he felt it was unfortunate
that the doctor did not present himself and explain what those programs were. Further,
there were an abundance of school districts anxious to have the services of Sister
Bernier, and Mr. Rus had discussed this matter with Capretz & McDonald when they (C&M)
made such a proposal to him. The fact was, Sister Bernier moved away from formal
teaching for her health.
Mr. Rus continued that although Sister Bernier was a member of the community of the
Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange, she was also a resident of the community of Anaheim
and as such, had rights in her home. He also touched on the following points: the
inference by Mr. Saunders that the Council was bound by the Planning Commission
relative to their determination that the service was a achool; the Planning Commission
made a determination that did not take into consideration the facts surrounding the
matter; a traffic count was not made until after a decision had been made at the
Planning Commission level; the students attending the tutoring service were not
under grant by the government as mentioned by Counsel in opposition; Sister Bernier
received a scholarship through her community enabling her to teach without requiring
people to pay what they would have to pay otherwise; other people were affected
besides those within the 300-foot radius and their attitudes also had to be taken
into consideration.
Mr. Rus felt the matter could be best summed up by a statement Mayor Thom made at
the previous meeting--there was an overriding and compelling interest that Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1768 be issued, and he heard no evidence which had not already
been considered by the Council in making their previous decision granting the permit.
Councilman Seymour took issue with the overriding and compelling interest in the
City of Anaheim rendering it imperative for Sister Bernier to conduct the school.
He did not find that to be true, especially when it was clearly pointed out where
the students were coming from and his further review of the petitions and signers
in favor and the geographic locations involved. He asked Mr. Rus if he had any
evidence to refute those two facts.
After some discussion between Councilman Seymour and Mr. Rus revolving around these
points, Mr. Rus stated he did not have evidence to support the overriding community
interest, but he could explain what he believed that concept to be. He then reiter-
ated that concept as explained at the meeting of January 24, 1978 (see minutes of
January 24, 1978, Page 78-99, paragraph 5) which involved (1) the interest of the
applicant, (2) the interests of those who opposed her and (3) the interest of the
community as a whole. He contended that Councilman Seymour believed he had no
responsibility to those people who gleaned something from Sister Bernier not being
residents of Anaheim. Although that might be true, Mr. Rus maintained that he
(Seymour) had a responsibility to the residents of the City of Anaheim and thus,
to Sister Bernier. Mr. Rus reiterated that the burden was on those who asked the
Council to reconsider the CUP and reverse its previous decision.
78-277
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked Mr. Rus if the garage of the subject residence
had been converted so that it was not usable as a garage and if cars were parked
therein normally, and also, whether Sister Bernier was occupying her home on a
long-term lease or renting month-to-month.
Mr. Rus first stated that the garage was fully functional and useable'as a garage,
but Sister Bernier had a van and she parks in the driveway. Although Mr. Rus
did not feel that the question regarding the length of lease or rental to be
relevant, he stated that Sister Bernier was occupying the home on a year-to-year
lease.
Councilman Seymour then referred to the testimony presented at the last meeting
that students were brought to the residence in car pools; however, the film showed
evidence contrary to that testimony. He asked if Mr. Rus had any evidence to
also refute that aspect.
Mr. Rus stated he had no evidence.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Seymour stated that new evidence had been given which could best be
cited as follows: (1) the evidence provided relative to the demographic location
of the proponents of the CUP more clearly demonstrated that those people did not
come from the City of Anaheim, (2) additional evidence demonstrated that the majority
of students receiving the service were not the children of citizens of Anaheim, but
children of citizens outside the City, (3) it was further demonstrated that deficiency
of services was no longer valid since special education programs were being offered
not only in other segments of the Anaheim community, but also throughout the County.
He believed that a compelling reason why the Council previously granted the permit
was due to this supposed deficiency. (4) Evidence in the film clearly depicted
there was no such thing as car pooling, and students were being picked up and
dropped off singularly. (5) ~here was also new evidence contrary to what was
stated at the first hearing that hours of operation were from 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
The film showed that as students were being dropped off at the school, other students
were walking to public schools, thus it was before 9:00 a.m. Further, the film more
clearly depicted the traffic problems involved.
RESOLUTION: In summation, Councilman Seymour recalled an event some four years
prior, where a group of citizens were opposed to a project and asked for a rehear-
ing which was rejected. Subsequently, a new Council came into office in 1974 that
stated they were for neighborhoods. Tonight, the Council had an opportunity to
demonstrate their commitment by voting no, and he thereupon offered Resolution No.
78R-159 denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1768.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that oddly enough, it was Mr.
Rus' last letter (February 13, 1978) that caused her to change her mind. It was
her hope that the disruptiveness caused in the entire neighborhood would have calmed
down and the situation placed in a better perspective. However, that was not the
case, and the matter had now escalated into a much greater problem. No one had
disputed Sister Bernier's qualifications and everyone had the highest praise for her.
~nere was nothing wrong with what was taking place as far as the services provided,
but where it was taking place.
78-278
City Hal.l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood continued that all children deserved a break, but as a Council
Member of Anaheim, the first obligation was to the residents of Anaheim, and there
was no place else the residents could turn, but to their City Council. On that
basis, she would support the resolution, as well as on the fact that Sister Bernier
was renting the home, thus without the same kind of commitment and investment
that the homeowners had in their homes.
Councilman Roth first stated that as people in the audience were aware, he had
the highest esteem for Sister Bernier and the services she was performing. He
commented on the film and noted there were only a small number of cars parked
at the curb. A condition was also placed upon Sister Bernier, that there would
be no more than 8 students in a 24-hour period by June 30, 1978. However, he
was concerned that since the last hearing, he believed Sister Bernier would not
be able to tolerate the situation, nor operate the school, considering the prevailing
atmosphere in the neighborhood; the emotional aspect being such almost to the point
of violence. This was evident to him by some calls he received which were on the
verge of threats. At the last meeting, he made a statement that there was more
to the situation than the idea of Sister Bernier trying to help people. Thus, he
was going to change his vote and oppose Conditional Use Permit No. 1768, because
the neighborhood did not know how to tolerate Sister Bernier and the efforts of
someone interested in helping people.
Councilman Kott stated he also felt Sister Bernier was performing an admirable
service and he had no quarrel with that. His decisions, however, were not made
on a political basis, but he tried to make them on a realistic and practical basis.
He, too, had changed his opinion relative to the matter and would vote in favor
of Councilman Seymour's resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1768.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution for denial offered by Council-
man Seymour for adoption, including rescinding Resolution No. 78R-55 and upholding
the findings of fact of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-159: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1768.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-159 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 9:05 'P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK