1978/05/16 78-575
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M._
· he City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
PARKS, RECREATION & ARTS DIRECTOR: James Ruth
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norm Priest
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Phil Schwartze
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Johnny Carlson of West Anaheim United Methodist Church
gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and
approved by the City Council:
"Anaheim Senior Citizens Day" - May 27, 1978
Mrs. Frances Scherman accepted the proclamation.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour,
the minutes of the City Council meetings held February 28 and March 28, 1978,
were approved subject to typographical corrections. Councilman Roth was absent.
Councilman Overholt abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $463,633.80, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
174: TITLE I LOANS UNDER THE LOCALITIES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM (CHFA): Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 78R-304 and 78R-305
for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated May 8, 1978, from the Executive
Director of Commmunity Development. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-576
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-304: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL
BANK ESTABLISHING THE METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR RATES TO BE CHARGED FOR TITLE I
LOANS UNDER THE LOCALITIES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, AND AUTHO-
RIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-305: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL
BANK TO SUBSIDIZE TITLE I LOANS UNDER THE LOCALITIES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-304 and 78R-305 duly passed and adopted.
174: PROJECT TLC - REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE: Mayor Seymour referred to
letter dated April 28, 1978, from Shirley Cohen, Project Director of Project TLC
(on file in the City Clerk's Office) requesting that the City of Anaheim pay the
cost of $200 a month rent being charged by the Salvation Army for the use of their
dining room and kitchen for the program. They wanted to be able to keep the Salva-
tion Army location at 201 East Cypress because it was in a target area of Anaheim
for low income and/or minority elders. The Mayor had discussed the matter with
Executive Director Norm Priest and he assured the Mayor that at this point, the
money was available for the budget. He (Priest) believed however in the longer
term that the program would be housed in a downtown community center when that
site had been identified and completed. Miss Cohen's request was a matter of
urgency to assure continuance of the Program for senior citizens.
Mr. Priest confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that the request was being considered
as part of their 1978-79 Budget package, and recommended approval of the program.
For purposes of clarification, he read from an initial letter sent by Joyce Netherly,
Assistant Project Director, Finance, to Mr. Bill Vasquez wherein she emphasized the
need of the TLC Program, specifically for the year July 1, 1978 to June 30, 1979--
$150 per month for the overhead cost at Anaheim II Center since Title VII did not
cover the cost of rent, and $25 per month for each center for arts and crafts
supplies--total request for Budget Year 1978-79, $2,400.
Assistant City Manager William Hopkins stated that the City Manager's office would
be considering the request along with others of like nature in the forthcoming
budget.
The Mayor emphasized his concern that the program be funded, and he was prepared to
make an immediate commitment to preclude any problems in the ensuing year since it
was of utmost important to the City's senior citizens in their ability to get one
good meal a day. An expenditure of $200 a month or $2,400 for one year was more
than appropriate. The purpose of bringing it to the Council's attention at this tim~--
was to have the Council make a commitment to Project TLC that, in fact, the City
would provide that assistance, otherwise the program could experience some difficulty_
78-577
City Hall., Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL._MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Priest stated it was an excellent program designed basically to provide
not only meals, but also recreational and educational opportunities as well
as simple fellowship for seniors. He reiterated that he recommended the
program very highly.
Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated that with an expression of commitment
from the Council, staff would make certain that it appear in the 1978-79 Budget
document.
The Mayor stated that they could appropriate the money out of funds available
presently, and reiterated he wanted a commitment from the Council so that TLC
could intelligently plan for the next year.
Councilman Kott thereupon posed several questions to Mr. Priest relative to the
program as to the qualifications for a person to be able to take advantage of
such a program. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Kott suggested that
at some future time, the Council should establish a policy or criteria relative
to requests for funding so that there would be some guide for the Council as to
where to draw the line. Undoubtedly, there would be others who would come along
and claim their cause to be just as worthy. His philosophy in representing the
people was to do what was best for the City.
Mr. Priest stated that they were looking at human services needs analysis, the
function being to identify needs existing in Anaheim and what resources were
available in order to submit a report that would make sense. It would give an
overview in terms of funding and future program planning which they considered
important because they saw the general need increasing faster than resources.
Since the Council would be looking at a number of items, Community Development
would try to provide some rationale for decision making.
The Mayor stated that Councilman Kott raised a valid point, but relative to the
program under consideration with which he was familiar, he was convinced if all
programs were laid before the Council today, TLC would be near or at the top.
Thus, he did not have any problem making a commitment to the program considering
its benefits to the community. He agreed that standards were necessary, and he
would look for such standards to come from the Community Services Board.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council
committed up to $2,400 for Project TLC subject to their approval of the 1978-79
Budget. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Priest stated that he considered the foregoing discussion to be a directive
that if he found an alternate facility that did not cost any money to host the
subject program, he should submit such information to the Council.
140: ACCEPT BUENA PARK LIBRARY DISTRICT AS A MEMBER OF THE SANTIAGO LIBRARY
SYSTEM: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-306 for adoption as
recommended in memorandum dated May 9, 1978, from Bettie Vandiver, Principal
Librarian. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-578
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-306: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE REQUEST OF THE BUENA PARK LIBRARY DISTRICT FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE
SANTIAGO LIBRARY SYSTEM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-306 duly passed and adopted.
150: PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS - PERALTA CANYON PARK MULTI-PURPOSE RECREATION
BUILDING: Mr. James Ruth, Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department,
briefed the Council on his memorandum dated May 10, 1978, outlining some of the
details on the subject building. Estimated cost of construction was $103,000
and funds would be available in next year's budget out of SB 174 funding approved
by the State.
Mayor Seymour thereupon questioned Randy Bosch, Project Manager, Dan L. Rowland
and Associates, relative to the cost of the building, noting that at 1,200 square
feet, the cost was $86 a square foot which he considered to be very expensive.
Mr. Randy Bosch explained that the building was actually 1,510 square feet bring-
ing the cost per square foot to $68, and they were presently undergoing 8 to 10
percent construction cost increases. He stated a good comparison was the Brook-
hurst Community Center building at $65 to $70 a square foot. The subject pro-
posed buildinng was a small one, but very heavy on plumbing and thus the cost
per square foot was fair. The big concern was to make such buildings vandal
resistant, especially relative to the plumbing fixtures which had to be extra
heavy-duty.
Mayor Seymour then suggested if the proposed recommendation was approved, it should
be followed by a motion asking the Park and Recreation Commission to review the
specifications of the building to see if there were some areas where costs could be
reduced, but at the same time protect against vandalism, an aspect which caused
the price to rise. Subsequently, the Council would have another opportunity to
again review the project before it was finalized into a construction contract.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, preliminary
design plans for construction of a multi-purpose recreation building for Peralta
Canyon Park was approved. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, 'the Park and
Recreation Commission was directed to review specifications of the proposed
recreation building at Peralta Canyon Park to look for ways in which the cost
might be reduced while retaining a vandalism-proof type structure. Councilman
Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AMENDMENT TO MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT CONTRACT WITH PERR: On
motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, authorization
for the Personnel Director to initiate procedures to amend the miscellaneous
employees retirement contract with PERS, to eliminate mandatory retirement at
age 67, effective August 18, 1978, was continued for one week at the request of
staff. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
78-579
C.ity. Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Assistant City Manager Hopkins explained that the AMEA requested to take
another look at the matter, and thus asked that it be postponed.
173: BUS SHELTERS PROGRAM - REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL PROPOSAL:
(Shelter Ads by EKO) Councilwoman Kaywood referred to memorandum dated May 9,
1978, from Phil Schwartze, Assistant Director of Planning, relative to the sub-
ject request, and inquired as to the amount of City time and money that would
be involved if the request were granted.
Pam Lucado, Planning Aide, stated that staff had not yet seen the final complete
plans, and a good deal of time would be necessary to review everything. What
had been seen to date was not entirely what the City would require.
Mayor Seymour interjected that thus far they had already seen two proposals and
the question now is whether or not they want to hear from a third party. He
personally did not want to see any of them, much less another proposal.
A brief discussion followed wherein Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she did not
want to see any additional money spent on the project; Councilman Kott suggested
the possibility of having Shelter Ads pay for the additional staff time necessary
if they were willing to do so.
Mr. Marlo Hernandez, EKO Shelter Ads, 2700 East Coast Highway, Corona Del Mar,
inquired as to how much money might be involved.
Mr. Phil Schwartze stated that it was difficult to know, and his guestimate
based upon the number of man hours spent on previous projects might be $2,000
to $3,000. He continued he was not certain, if approved, how the City would
stand legally because originally there were a number of applicants and only
two were able to meet what he considered a liberal time frame. Those two
cbmpanies worked diligently and built their products, staff subsequently sent
surveys out to obtain input regarding the shelters, and they were now coming
towards the conclusion of the original demonstration time. Consequently, they
would be extending the demonstration period for the two shelters already in place,
in addition to new proposals which would then take some time. He suggested if
approval were given that EKO accept a time frame in which to comply or the matter
could go on indefinitely.
Councilman Overholt stated that the decision should be made in September, the
deadline for exploration of the present program. If the Council was dissatisfied
at that time with the performance of the two participants who met the original
conditions and requirements, it would not preclude the City from commencing
another program. Then, EKO could proceed as well as others.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Kott, the inclusion of
Shelter Ads by EKO and similar proposals in the City's bus shelter demonstration
project at this time was denied. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
132: TRASH STRIKE - ANAHEIM DISPOSAL COMPANY SERVICE CHARGES AND REDUCED CHARGES.
TO CUSTOMERS - PAYMENT TO JAYCOX DISPOSAL: Mayor Seymour stated that as he under-
stood the situation, the disposal company had been working with the Director of
Public Works, Thornton Piersall, in resolving the matter relative to the sanita-
tion charges for solid waste collection as a result of the labor strike. Regarding
commercial customers, the proposal was to authorize full payment to the Anaheim
78-580
_CCity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Disposal Company for the month of April 1978, and that Anaheim Disposal in turn,
would reconcile all claims for refunds on a one-to-one basis upon inquiry as
outlined in memorandum dated May 10, 1978, from the Director of Public Works.
Relative to residential users (Jaycox Disposal), a 3-week credit would be issued
to all single-family dwellings and apartment houses as outlined in memorandum
dated May 10, 1978, from Mr. Piersall. The Mayor believed those recommendations
to be excellent solutions, and he also personally applauded all the citizens of
Anaheim for being so understanding and patient while the matter was being resolved.
Anaheim Disposal and Jaycox were also to be commended for not only delivering
the level of service they were able to provide, but also their agreement to resolve
the question of repayment to the citizens of Anaheim for services they did not
receive.
Mr. Piersall then explained upon questioning by the Mayor that citizens could
expect to receive credit for services not rendered for the next two months and
one week, and such credit would be appearing on their utility bill clearly stated.
He then read from memorandum dated May 16, 1978, already submitted to the
Council giving an analysis of the service reduction in both apartment complexes
served by bins and single-family residences. The fact that the refund appeared
to be minimal was a tribute to the low rate for such service in the City of Anaheim.
They assumed the first day of the strike to be April 18, 1978, with lack of service
continuing through May 7, 1978. Thus, a 20-day period was involved. Single-family
residences paid $1.87 for that service and the 20 days divided by that rate resulted
in a $1.25 credit for single-family units and multiple-family units without bin
service. Equating the same credit to multiple-family units with bins currently
paying $1.62 would result in a credit of $1.08.
Mr. Raut Rangel, Vice President of Jaycox Disposal, residential contractor for
Anaheim, thanked the Mayor, the Council and all the citizens of Anaheim for the
support given them during the strike. They tried to do their best in resolving
the matter at the earliest possible time, but there were circumstances beyond
their control which they expected to have concluded by week's end.
Mr. Bill Taormina, Anaheim Disposal, commercial contractor for Anaheim, also
thanked the Council and the citizens for their support. He emphasized the
reason they fought so diligently in not giving in to union demands was due to
the fact that the citizens of Anaheim deserve the lowest or one of the lowest
rates in the County (see Anaheim Disposal letter dated May 9, 1978, on file in
the City Clerk's Office).
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, full payment
to the Anaheim Disposal Company for the month of April with the stipulation that
Anaheim Disposal Company reconcile all claims for refunds due to the labor strike
and present a report to the City of the amount of each claim and the settlement
achieved was authorized, as recommended in memorandum dated May 10, 1978, from the
Director of Public Works. Councilman Roth was absent~ MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, a one-time reduction
of fees charged by an amount equivalent to three weeks' service, due to decreased
services during the labor strike, and authorizing reduction of payment to Jaycox
Disposal Company was authorized. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
78-5~1
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
123/161: PLAN PREPARATION AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ON-SITE SEWER IN LEMON STREET
AND BROADWAY: (McDaniel and Associates) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution
No. 78R-307 for adoption, authorizing an agreement with A. R. McDaniel, dba
McDaniel and Associates to provide services for plan preparation and specifica-
tions for an on-site sewer in Lemon Street and Broadway, cost estimate $112,000.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-307: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH A. R. MC DANIEL, DBA
MC DANIEL AND ASSOCIATES, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-307 duly passed and adopted.
123/161: PLAN PREPARATION AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
- CLAUDINA~ EMILY AND PHILADELPHIA STREETS: (Willdan Associates) Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-308 for adoption as recommended in memorandum
dated April 26, 1978, jointly from the Director of Public Works and the Director
of the Redevelopment Department, cost estimate $36,300. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-308: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH WILLDAN ASSOCIATES FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE DESIGN OF WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-308 duly passed and adopted.
175.123: ANTITRUST LITIGATION AGAINST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Authorizing
an agreement with the Cities of Azusa, Banning, Colton and Riverside in connec-
tion with antitrust litigation against the Southern California Edison Company.
RESOLUTION: For the purpose of discussion, Councilman Overholt offered Resolution
No. 78R-309 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated May 4, 1978, from the
Utilities Director.
Councilman Kott posed questions to the Utilities Director relative to the subject.
agreement as follows: (1) he wanted to know where the money was coming from to
pay for the subject litigation and if Proposition "A" money was being expended in
that regard and, (2) what was the maximum cost figure and did that include out-of-
pocket expenses?
78-582
--City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt stated that money was allocated in the 1977-78
Budget for those expenditures which would occur in the current year, money was
included in the 1978-79 Budget for expenditures anticipated during the coming
year, and that situation would continue for as many years as the City pursued
the litigation. It was not Proposition "A" money, and the ultimate cost could
approach $1 million in total. Some travel expenses would be included relative
to the City's East Coast experts coming to California. However, a local law
firm would be handling the trial portion of the case as previously discussed
with the City Council. The City's attorneys would actually employ the specialists
and experts and their work papers would be under the control of their attorneys
thus, the bill from the attorneys would include not only their legal services,
but also the economists, engineering and rate experts and other such experts
they would bring forth. The agreement was one in which the participating cities
were agreeing to share the costs of the litigation.
Councilman Kott contended the agreement was "blank check" and cited as an example
paragraph 1 on page 2 of the agreement (on file in the City Clerk's Office). As
an analogy, he cited the League of California Cities which assesses dues by the
City without regard to population, whereas the proposed agreement took size into
consideration. In both cases, the equities were such that it was not in the best
interest of the taxpayer of the community. There was a dual basis of assessment
depending upon the entity assessing the City and he found that difficult to live
with.
Mayor Seymour stated that he shared Councilman Kott's concern relative to the
dues structure in the League of Cities, but an issue was missing in the present
question which had not yet been broached. Mr. Hoyt indicated attorneys fees
could run as high as $1 million, and Anaheim would be responsible for approximately
one-half of that amount. If the City were successful in the litigation, he wanted
to know what benefits would accrue to it.
Utilities Director Hoyt explained that the suit was approximately $23 million in
single damages which would be trebled in the event of a win, or $69 million. The
cities agreed to a cost sharing basis based on how that $23 million was incurred
and if there was a different basis for settlement, the costs would be readjusted
accordingly.
For clarification purposes, the Mayor then voiced his understanding of the
agreement--Anaheim was entering an agreement from which it could withdraw on
30 days' notice. It might spend into $50,000 for $10,000 and at that point
evaluate the situation, and if it did not look promising, withdraw. On the
other hand, the City could spend $100,000 and perhaps win at that point. Like-
wise, it could cost $500,000 and if won at that point, the City could potentially
receive $69 million.
Mr. Hoyt confirmed the Mayor's assessment of the matter, but relative to the last
point, the City would receive approximately half of the $69 million.
Mayor Seymour thereupon stated that his feelings relative to the matter without
getting it confused with the League of Cities was that the City was finally able
to get 4 other cities to join it in litigation against Southern California Edison
to ascertain if allegations of a price squeeze over a number of years could be
City Hal. l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-583
proven in court. It was a gamble of up to $1.5 million with the option to
withdraw at any time or with the possibility of a settlement occurring long
before it progressed to finality with an expenditure of much less than $500,000
in attorneys fees. He viewed that as a good possibility, but in the event the
Council chose not to go forward he asked if anyone could offer a better alter-
native to recover that which was considered due the City. He believed that the
question today did not involve itself with generation per se as he contended was
Councilman Kott's argument, but whether or not the City would proceed with an
antitrust suit against the previous practices of Southern California Edison
relative to the City's utilities, as well as the other utilities named.
Councilwoman Kaywood was of the opinion to do nothing would be to gain nothing.
Councilman Overholt questioned the provision on page 3 of the agreement, number
3, asking Mr. Hoyt if he had any concern with the fact that the City may with-
draw from the litigation at a given point in time and also questioned what would
happen to Anaheim if 50 percent of the sponsors withdrew very early in the pro-
ceedings.
Mr. Hoyt stated the City would then have to be concerned as to whether or not
they wished to go forward, as well as the reasons why the other cities withdrew.
If he were ultimately faced with that decision, he believed he would recommend
that the City still go forward because the $35 million for Anaheim's participa-
tion would be worth the investment. The attorneys were also very c6nfident in
this particular case and were taking the work on at less than their normal 'fee.
In the event of success, they would be amply compensated, but in the event of
a loss, they would not earn their normal fee.
Further discussion followed wherein Mr. Hoyt clarified for Mayor Seymour that
if, for example, Azusa decided to withdraw after expending $15,000 and the re-
mainder of the cities went forward with the case and won, Azusa could ask to
ge{ $15,000 worth of the return on a pro rata basis. The Mayor thereupon stated
that he wanted to pursue the case, but the particular point raised provided no
equity. He was not going to permit another participant to ride along at their
own benefit at the risk of dollars being put up by the City of Anaheim. When
a law suit was dropped, it was given up and the participants should write off
what was spent to that point.
Mr. Alan Watts, special counsel, stated that relative to the question raised,
there was the contingency where if a city decided to withdraw, under what terms
and conditions with respect to the whole law suit would they do so. It was a
question as to whether they would terminate only their participation in the
cost sharing agreement and settle their litigation with Edison on some basis
separately. If they did not do that, then it was thought that to the extent
they still had a claim active and some later judgment was made'on it, they
were to share in some respect. If they settled, then they would be out of the
matter entirely, but at this point it was not known what was going to happen.
Councilman Kott congratulated Mr. Watts for assuming his point of view, that is,
the City did not know what was going to happen because such matters were not
included or spelled out in the agreement. That was his basis for calling it a
"blank check". He did not believe it was worth the risk.
78-584
--City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Watts suggested that the agreement be approved subject to an amendment that
would spell out precisely the question with which the Council was concerned; in
the event of a withdrawal by a particular city, they would withdraw on the basis
that that city's entire litigation be terminated forever. If that were done, the
City would be restricting its options, but such an amendment would be advantageous
to the city carrying the largest cost burden (Anaheim).
Mayor Seymour stated it would be to Anaheim's benefit to have the agreement
reflect that change since it was carrying the greatest share of the burden.
Thus, it gave certain rights of input as to what the agreement should say.
Councilman Overholt agreed. He believed either a city participated or did not
participate, and if it decided to drop out, benefits would not necessarily accrue.
The other participants should have an incentive to continue in the litigation. He
was certain as a matter of economics that the other cities would conclude that it
would be more beneficial to them for Anaheim to "carry the ball" and take their
pro rata share of the proceeds of the anticipated settlement or judgment. Mr.
Watts also confirmed that if one of the cities settled with Edison, they would
waive their investment in whatever settlement or judgment was reached. He con-
sidered the rest of the agreement to be favorable and tied in nicely with the fee
agreement.
Councilman Overholt thereupon amended the resolution offered subject to the
amendment of Section 3, page 3, to include the stipulation that, if any of 'the
participating cities decided to withdraw from the litigation, that they withdraw
on the basis that their entire litigation was resolved and terminated at the time
of withdrawal. A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution with stipulated
amendment. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-309: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITIES OF AZUSA,
BANNING, COLTON AND RIVERSIDE IN CONNECTION WITH ANTITRUST LITIGATION AGAINST
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-309 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-3t0 for adoption
authorizing a letter agreement with the law firm of Spiegel & McDiarmid and
Blecher, Collins and Hoecker in connection with an antitrust suit against
Southern California Edison Company as recommended in memorandum dated May 4
1978, from the Utilities Director. '
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney Hopkins noted there was a provision in
the resolution (page 1, last paragraph) which intended that the agreement between
the cities be executed before the agreement with the attorney was signed; Mayor
Seymour stated that the resolution would include that instruction.
78-585
City Ha,ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-310: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LETTER AGREEMENT DATED APRIL 14, 1978,
WITH THE LAW FIRMS OF SPIEGEL & McDIARMID AND BLECHER, COLLINS AND HOECKER IN
CONNECTION WITH AN ANTITRUST SUIT AGAINST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID LETTER AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-310 duly passed and adopted.
It was also confirmed that the cost sharing agreement should be resubmitted to
the Council with the fee arrangement provisions as outlined in the May 4, 1978
memorandum before it was submitted to the Attorneys for execution.
175: DIEMER INTERTIE - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Councilman Kott
stated that the Council previously had voted for a $3 million item known as
the Diemer Intertie. At the time, he expressed concerns about the project.and
asked what alternatives were available and was told there were none. During
the interim, the Council had been enlightened by Mr. Gus Lenain's presentation
which was corroborated with the Water Department stating there was at least one
pipe in the vicinity of Nohl Canyon and Santa Ana Canyon that could be used to
completely cover the Hill and Canyon area down to the Corona line. Thus, he did
not believe the Council was given full information as to the possibilities of at
least that alternative. He understood there was also another alternative, but
he did not have the location at the present time.
Councilman Kott continued that, in his investigation, it was determined that the
basic design for the Diemer Intertie was to bring water to the cities to the
south so they would be able to fill their reservoir. He was not certain that
this fact was brought forth as part of the City's participation in the intertie.
MOTION: In view of the foregoing items, Councilman Kott moved that the City
Manager be directed to obtain a staff report relative to the Council's approval
of the Diemer Intertie and why the following information was not presented at the
time of approval: (1) an alternative to the intertie was available; (2) the
intertie was designed to bring water to the cities to the south. Councilman
Seymour seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
175: TRADITIONAIRE LUMINAIRE LIGHTING - REQUEST FOR REPORT: Councilman Kott
referred to a report received from the City Manager giving information about
the very poor traditionaire luminaire street lighting in the Canyon area.
The fixtures were recommended to the City by Anaheim Hills in 1972, and since
then had been a constant problem with resultant heavy maintenance costs. He
recommended that the City Manager direct staff to discuss the matter with Anaheim
Hills and have them pay for the maintenance cost incurred since it was their
recommendation that the City buy those particular fixtures. They should also
assume the responsibility to pay resultant costs. From his personal standpoint,
he would vote "no" on any further recommendations made by Anaheim Hills.
78-586
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the lighting was recommended on the basis that
it was more aesthetic and would fit in well with the Canyon and Anaheim Hills
area.
Councilman Seymour moved that before Councilman Kott's request asking the
Council to take action, the City Manager be directed to provide a copy of
the report on Traditionaire Luminaire lighting to Anaheim Hills requesting
a response in three weeks. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. Councilman
Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:05 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present with the exception of Councilman Roth. (3:15 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1814: Application by Arthur H. and
Rose May Kaplan, Stanley and Joyce Black, to permit an automobile transmission
rebuilding and repair facility on ML zoned property located at 2020 East Katella
Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-62, reported that
the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the
proposed project falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class'l, of the
City of Anaheim Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, cate-
gorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR, and further granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1814, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property submit a letter requesting termination
of Variance No. 2448 prior to the commencement of the activity under this resolu-
tion, or within a period of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first
or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked EXhibit Nos.
1 through 3.
3. That all work shall be done wholly inside the structure.
4. That no vehicles shall be stored on the premises and all overnight vehicle
parking will be indoors with the exception of a maximum of two (2) vehicles to
be left outside overnight.
5. That there shall be no painted signs on the front, sides or rear of the
structure.
6. That the only wall signing will consist of raised plastic letters on the
front of the building.
7. That landscaping shall be provided in the existing planter areas and shall
be properly maintained in accordance with Code.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the Hartmann Corporation
and public hearing scheduled this date.
78-587
City H.all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Hugh Conroy, Post Office Box 1738, San Pedro, briefed the Council on the
proposed automotive transmission franchise which would be the fourth of its
kind on the West Coast. The location was ideal from a demographic and traffic
standpoint, and one of the requirements was that it be located in a high exposure
area. Another condition of the franchise required that the facility maintain a
neat, proper and well groomed look. He then referred to a franchise pamphlet
which explained the details of the operation as well as a copy of a letter from
the franchisee dated May 16, 1978, in response to a letter written to the Council
dated April 14, 1978, in opposition answering each of the points raised by
corresponding numbered paragraphs. Mr. Conroy also stated that the permitted
primary uses within the ML zone at this time would allow certain uses far more
slovenly than the proposed business was construed as being. In concluding, he
explained that the franchise required commercial usage of the property and that
was the reason they were appearing before the Council. The Planning 'Commission
unanimously favored the use, and he asked that the Council do likewise.
Mr. William Shubin, 72 Pinestone, Irvine, representing the lessor in obtaining
the leasing on the building, explained why the previously existing service center
at the subject location closed the business. A wholesale tire dealer approxi-
mately one-half mile from the subject location used the building as a service
center where tire purchasers would go to have their tires installed. Other
services were also offered such as brake work and shock absorbers. The dealer
felt rather than maintaining management for that facility in addition to working
staff, that it would be more economical to field the work out. Thus, although
it was an excellent location for an owner/operator, the overhead was too great
to justify maintaining the facility.
Mr. Bob Landrum, 1162 Parkway Avenue, Garden Grove, owner of the franchise, stated
that he and his son made up the additional pamphlet submitted which also contained
a letter dated May 16, 1978, giving their answer to the opposing viewpoints of
the Hartmann Corporation. Also, as evidenced by the picture, the existing building
was not unattractive and the home office in Detroit considered it an ideal loca-
tion designed for automotive work. There was also no heat in the building and thus
could not be easily modified for any other use. Mr. Landrum then referred to the
remaining pictures in the pamphlet for the purpose of pointing out that anything
that would develop around the proposed service center would have no problem because
theirs would be a commercial building. The only deviation was'relative to parking.
The Planning Commission granted parking for a maximum of 2 vehicles overnight and
the home office advised they would need to have approximately 5 granted dependent
upon customers coming to pick up their cars in the evening. There could be 5 or
10 cars waiting at a particular time, but never more than that amount. Surrounding
uses such as Fitzgerald's Restaurant and the Travel Lodge had 19 to 20 cars parked
in their lot all day long. The cars that would be parked at the proposed use would
not be wrecked cars, but just those waiting to be picked up after service. He and
his son were putting their lives into the business which they maintained would be
an asset to the community.
78-588
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the proposed condi-
tional use permit.
Mr. Alan Watts, 1055 North Main Street, Santa Ana, attorney appearing on behalf
of the Hartmann Corporation, stated the concern was a simple one--the appropriate
use of land for the subject parcel of ground located approximately at the inter-
section of State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue. It was zoned ML and the
applicant was asking for a conditional use permit, not a matter of right, but an
exception to the general rule with respect to the zone. Although a variance had
been granted in 1973, he maintained the concern today was to ascertain what had
occurred with respect to the vicinity insofar as land use since that variance was
granted and what the Council believed was going to occur in the future. Basically,
present uses were a mixture of commercial-recreational uses as well as light indus-
trial. Mr. Watts then showed the location of the site from a posted map as well
as the Hartmann property which had frontage on both State College and Katella in
an L-shaped configuration. The oldest uses in the area were three service stations
located at the subject intersection. Mr. Watts then elaborated on the uses pre-
sently existing in the area at the northeast, northwest and southwest corners of
the intersection consisting of a bank building, restaurants, office buildings,
Travel Lodge and Sandman Motels, Lloyd McDonald's industrial complex, and the
Golden West business complex. Those were the kinds of uses being developed in
the area and the Hartmann Corporation was also looking at commercial and office
uses for their property although they had no particular tenant or specific use
in mind at present.
Mr. Watts then referred to the property to the south owned by the City of Anaheim
(Stadium property) and posed the question as to what would happen with respect to
the possibility of the Los Angeles Rams coming into the area. In his view, whether
or not the Rams moved, there was a potential commercial use on the City's property
and of the existing uses in the area, none were transmission rebuilding concerns.
Approximately one-half of 12 like businesses in the City were located on Anaheim
Boulevard between South Street and La Palma, and immediately to the west of the
Santa Ana Freeway on Lincoln, another cluster existed. He pointed to the locations
which were pinpointed on another map displayed on the Chamber wall~ Mr. Watts
suggested those were the locations which operators and previous City Councils felt
appropriate for the use.
In concluding, Mr. Watts stated it was their view that the existing building pro-
posed to be used by the applicant could be converted to an office use. They be-
lieved that use to be the most appropriate for the subject parcel of land.
Mr. Dick Bradshaw, representing Kiely Corporation, 2110 East Katella, stated they
wished to voice a similar objection to the granting of the conditional use permit
relative to Mr. Watt's presentation on the development of the vicinity immediately
surrounding the subject property. He then presented a rendering of an office
buiding they were proposing to start in approximately 30 days which was estimated
go cost $1.4 million. The property on which they were building was adjacent to
and adjoined the Hartmann Corporation property on approximately 3 acres. An
identical building faced to the rear toward Katella Avenue would follow. They
believed it to be an excellent use based on a most recent marketing study.
78-589
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ ,1:30 P.M.
In closing, Mr. Bradshaw stated that they believed the property in question
would have a higher, better and more profitable long-term use than that pro-
posed. Further, it was logical that the Council take a good look and consider
the long-term benefits to the City and to the surrounding area.
Mr. Robert Reagen, representing the Community Bank, 1750 South State College
Boulevard, stated they were in agreement with Mr. Watts in opposing the condi-
tional use permit. They owned approximately 5 acres of property immediately
across the street and the intended use would be an architecturally designed
building for either light industrial or office complex use.
Mr. James Wharton, attorney representing Mr. Walt Taylor, owner of the control-
ling interest in the Woodbridge Office Center adjacent to Charlie Brown's Restau-
rant, expressed his opposition to the granting of the conditional use permit as
that of Mr. Watts and the other representatives.
Mr. Keith Bocock, 1775 East Lincoln, stated they had just developed a building
on the north side of Katella in the City of Orange immediately on the other side
of the river comprised of 21,000 square feet of mixed office, commercial and
industrial. Next month they were breaking ground on another large Project adjacent
to it. They considered the proposed use to be inconsistent with their development
and he, too, joined Mr. Watts and the others in opposition to the granting of the
conditional use permit. As well, another aspect to consider was th~ fact that
many cars would be disabled, and thus, the traffic pattern should be considered due
to the fact that towing would be involved.
Mr. John McPeek, representing Corbin Allen, owner of the Sandman Motel, 1800 East
Katella, stated that he was in agreement with Mr. Watts in opposing the granting
of Conditional Use Permit No. 1814.
Mr. Larry Gilbert, 3038 Mountain View Drive, Laguna Beach, stated he was represent-
ing Dr. Roberson, who was in the process of obtaining a permit to build his proposed
motel next to the subject property. He was in opposition to the proposed enter-
prise, not the business itself, but the location. They would also feel very
uncomfortable if the Council allowed the Hartmann Corporation a similar variance
to develop the total area surrounding the subject property with a similar type of
business. Their property adjoined the service station and the subject property
to the south boundary and they were surrounded by the Hartmann property.
In summation, Mr. Landrum stated he did not realize that auto transmission shops
were so distasteful. As well, one gentlemen suggested he was going to construct
a building similar to one already existing not too far away on Katella which al-
ready had a transmission shop in the center of it which was rented out after the
building was built. The buildings depicted in the photos he shbmitted had pro-
ceeded with much more unfavorable things alongside of them than the building
which they proposed to utilize. The Bowmain Corporation presently had a 15-year
lease on the building, and they had to put it to some use whether it was taken
by him (Landrum) or not. He did not believe that Bowmain would be so inclined to
put in anything but an automotive-type use and a forklift business would fall under
the present zoning which operation could commence without asking for a variance.
Forklifts could also be stacked up out front. He pointed out that in checking the
records, Mr. Hartmann objected back in 1973 and his property, on speculation, was
still untenable.
78-590
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Conroy pointed out that relative to like uses in the immediate area, there
was a very expensive facility of an automotive nature just to the east on the
north side of Katella, McClure-Lincoln Mercury. However, he had not heard
anyone mention that facility in their presentations.
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in oppo-
sition, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Kott asked Mr. Landrum if much noise would be generated from his
operation.
Mr. Landrum explained that an air compressor would be running in the building,
but no heavy punch presses or like equipment. The noise however should be
contained completely in the building and the roof was insulated. He then further
explained how the transmission work would be accomplished and stated there would
be no undue noise. Five cars a day on transmission rebuilding would be a large
amount of business.
In answer to Councilman Kott, Miss Santalahti stated that forklifts were permitted
to be stored out of doors in an industrial zone, but were required to be enclosed
by a fence constructed to the same height as the highest portion of the forklift
so as to be screened from the view of adjacent properties at the very least by a
chain-link fence with wooden slats.
Councilwoman Kaywood maintained that the present situation was just the reverse
of that expressed by Mr. Landrum wherein Mr. Stox and Longfellow's restaurants
were built next to something unappealing. The subject area was the gateway to
the Stadium and the proposed use would be detrimental to the types of commercial-
recreational developments presently approved and being built in the area. Many
times in similar cases, promises had been made that only indoor uses would be
involved, but these eventually resulted in enforcement problems. She was interested
in the long-term view in protecting the interest of the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council finds that this project
will have no significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the require-
ment to prepare an environmental impact report. Councilman Roth was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-311 for adoption, denying Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1814, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission.
Under discussion, Mayor Seymour stated that he saw a very rapid change taking
place in the entire subject area and elaborated on the amenities the location
had to offer and the very successful developments of a light industrial and
office building nature presently existing. If a proper job was done, he anti-
¢ipated more of the same type of development. If so, he would have to ask
himself if he would be interested in building a professional office building
immediately adjacent to the proposed use. He was interested in enhancing the
high quality type developments proposed such as the Sunset Construction project
on approximately 20 acres at Orangewood and Rampart Streets. He did not want to
see such developments hindered or slowed down, and for that reason he would support
a resolution of denial.
78-591
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated he was also going to support the resolution of
denial as he recently noted the startling change that had taken place in the
area over the last few years. He believed it to be a very important area for
the development of the City because it was a portal.
Councilman Kott stated it was a difficult decision, but he had to agree that
the area would be better off without the type of business proposed. It was
an area in the midst of developing and care had to be asserted in the uses
permitted therein. Personally, he did not have a desire to be located in an
area where his neighbors were not in favor of his being there. Such a situa-
tion would result in problems and therefore it would be in everyone's best
interest including the applicant to have the conditional use permit denied.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-311: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1814.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-311 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Seymour suggested that in light of the unanimous vote of the Planning
Commission granting the use, it would be appropriate for the Council to direct
the Commission to evaluate the area encompassing the changes that have taken
place when looking to the future.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the Planning
Commission was directed to study the subject area and submit recommendations
as to future developments. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-53 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1815:
Application by E. O. Rodeffer, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 and ML to ML
on property located on the east side of Dale Avenue, south of Orangethorpe Avenue,
to permit a racquetball facility.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-56 declared the
subject property exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact
report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
and further recommended that Reclassification No. 77-78-53 be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. That trash storage areas shall be provide~ in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
2. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
78-592
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
3. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
4. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
5. That appropriate water assessment fees, as determined by the Director of
Public Utilities, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
6. That Condition Nos. 1, 3 and 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-57 granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1815, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 77-78-53, now pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 and 2.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Mayor Seymour
on April 18, 1978, and public hearing scheduled this date.
The City Clerk announced that the City of Buena Park delivered a communication
advising they would not consider water and sewer services to the property located
between the Riverside and Santa Ana Freeways on Paige Street, east of Cass Drive,
in the City of Anaheim owned by Mr. Rodeffer unless annexed to the City of Buena
Park, and further that annexation would not be considered unless the property was
dsveloped to Buena Park's Code and Development Standards, and any development
plans for said property approved by the City of Buena Park.
Before proceeding, Mayor Seymour stated the reason he asked that a public hearing
be set was to recognize and understand the concerns of the City of Buena Park.
Although he was satisfied with the recommendations of the City Planning Commission
to approve the project, he sensed that Buena Park was not afforded sufficient
opportunity to present their case. The communication received today however still
did not explain why they were opposed. He thereupon asked if a representative of
the City of Buena Park was present to give testimony.
Mr. Ken Griffith, Senior Planner for the City of Buena Park, stated that the
project was presented to their Planning Commission for review and they shared
many of the same concerns as expressed by their staff in a letter dated April 12,
1978. The City Council had also reviewed the matter at their meeting of May 15,
1978, which resulted in the hand-carried communication showing Council action
relative to the matter. The subject property was the tip-end of the southern
tip of a triangular shaped parcel located between the Santa Ana and Riverside
Freeways. Previously, Anaheim and Buena Park had concluded that the property
was physically isolated from Anaheim and all primary services such as utilities,
police and fire protection would come from Buena Park. As well, it should be
deannexed from Anaheim and annexed to Buena Park. That process was started on
the whole triangle of property, but the property owner of the southern tip was
not in favor; thus, the resolution had to be modified and the property to the north
only was deannexed from Anaheim and annexed to Buena Park. In reviewing the
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-593
application of the project, they pointed out several things, one of which had
not previously been broached. There was no provision for sanitary facilities
for the 10-court racquetball facility development. With people playing and
people also waiting, it would be difficult to find a restroom in that particular
area. That posed a problem from Buena Park's standpoint as well as the other
8 concerns listed in the letter dated April 12, 1978. Mr. Griffith read the
letter aloud (made a part of the record).
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Harry Schrey, 1720 East Gary, Santa Aha, explained that from the outset,
they were doing business with the Planning Department of the City of Anaheim
and one of the first questions raised was that it might be difficult to get
water to the area. He had been cognizant of that fact which prompted him to
speak to the City Engineer of Buena Park. He was told it would require a double
rate for water going in, as well as a double monthly rate. Thereafter, he met
with Buena Park City staff in trying to work out a solution. At present, Larry
Sears, Civil Engineering Associate for Anaheim, was working up some figures
relative to the possibility of the City of Anaheim supplying water to the site.
Mr. Schrey then spoke to the parking situation which Buena Park considered inade-
quate and maintained that 95 percent of the games played involved only 2 people
making the requirement for 3.5 spaces per court impractical. Further, they
requested through the Planning.Department an unattended 24-hour coin operated
racquetball facility without any sanitary facility, and in discussing the situa-
tion with both City staffs, no one could come up with a possible means of policing
a pair of restrooms in an unattended facility. They would have security guards
as well as landscape maintenance crews that would make regular rounds, but not
of high frequency. However, open restrooms would be an untenable situation and
for that reason, their only use for water would be for landscaping, sprinklers
and a drinking fountain. They thought they were doing business with Anaheim or
would have contacted Buena Park and at no time did they believe they should con-
tact Buena Park before progressing.
Mr. Schrey then spoke to some of the additional concerns raised by Buena Park.
He explained that they followed all of the Anaheim'Planning Department require-
ments and codes and would not try to build anything by circumventing regulations,
and Buena Park's standards were different from that of Anaheim relative to setbacks
and parking.
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition,
the Mayor closed the public hearing.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Schrey then related the following information:
theirs was a new pay-and-play concept that cut down on expenses to the racquetball
player; there was no membership or monthly fee and it was considered a "poor man's"
racquetball court because of the nominal use fee. They had 3 different buildings
similar to the one proposed, one was in Van Nuys and one in West Covina, and these
two were presently going through the building departments for permits. These build-
ings were also to be built without restrooms. At present, it posed a debatable
problem with Los Angeles and they were working it out, but they had not experienced
any problem on that matter with West Covina.
78-594
--City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Griffith then explained for Councilman Kott that there had been instances
where property was in another city and they supplied water and sewer services.
The normal process was to allow sewer and water at double the rate, but in this
instance, the City felt it would not be in the best interest to do so. He likened
it to the property at the end of Savanna Street which although physically isolated
from the City, was still located in Buena Park and attempts to deannex had not
been successful because the property owner did not wish to do so as previously
expressed. In this instance, no matter how the boundary was drawn and because it
was completely separated from Anaheim, it did look as though it were in the City
of Buena Park, and they were concerned about their image as was every city. The
project would be in a commercial-industrial area where a restroom was going to be
difficult to find. Thus, they maintained the use to be of questionable compatability
with what their city was developing in that area.
Further discussion followed between the Council, Mr. Griffith and staff wherein
it was revealed that restroom facilities were required by the Building Code when
1 to 15 people would be involved, requiring one restroom facility for each sex.
The Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit assuming the developer
had done what he needed to do and typically such a question did not arise at a
Planning Commission hearing. When the developer filed his building plans, such
facilities would have to be provided or good reasons given as to why not.
MOTION: Additional discussion followed relative to the problem rev6lving around
the lack of restrooms in the facility at the conclusion of which the Mayor recom-
mended that the matter be again referred to the Planning Commission so that they
could review a more specific plan, especially relative to restroom facilities and
make recommendations. Otherwise, the alternatives were to deny or approve the
project and he was not inclined to do either. Councilman Kott seconded the motion
for a two weeks' continuance for Planning Commission review.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her feeling that the
property should be deannexed from Anaheim and annexed into Buena Park although
she was not opposed to a review by the Planning Commission.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1813: Application by Kennard C.
and Betty M. Haverstick, to permit a board and care facility for six physically
handicapped children on RS-7200 zoned property located at 2609 East Diana Place.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-61, reported that
the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the
proposed project falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the
City of Anaheim Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, cate-
gorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR and further, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1813, subject to the following conditions:
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 and 2.
78-595
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Mayor Seymour,
and public hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Terry Wolf, 9923 East Woodruff, Temple City, stated she was an Urban Planner
retained by the Regional Center of Orange County to assist both the Regional
Care Center and potential care providers in filing their applications with
local government. Today she was present on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Pedrosa,
care providers. They had reviewed the minutes of the Planning Commission
hearing and ascertained there were a number of different issues amongst which
were the following: (1) general concern expressed about having retarded
children in the community; (2) the children might be inclined to climb back-
yard walls and trespass into neighbors property and get into their swimming
pools; (3) the potential for a less desirable type of community care. facility
to be located on the property after the proposed use ended; (4) State licensing
requirements might be exceeded if the proper kind of supervision was not pro-
vided; (5) the land use would be of a business nature and not residential;
(6) the use might be better located in a transitional zone as opposed to a
single-family residential zone.
Ms. Wolf then submitted a petition signed by 68 people who knew the Pedrosas
and their operation and who wanted to support them in their quest to establish
a boarding care facility in a new location. Also submitted were 2 letters from
mothers whose children were in the care of the Pedrosa family, letters from 2
teachers who were responsible for caring for the children in a school environ-
ment, and letters from 16 friends, neighbors and employer who knew the Pedrosas
and the activities that took place in their existing facility in Garden Grove.
Ms. Wolf then named those who wished to speak on behalf of the Pedrosas, as well
as the Pedrosas themselves.
Mrs. Mary Pedrosa, 2609 East Diana Place, explained that she and her husband were
care providers for handicapped children and presently were licensed for the care
of four. The reason they purchased the new residence was to make a better home
for the children and themselves. They were questioned at the Planning Commission
hearing as to the care they provided. The children were given 24-hour care with
constant supervision and the social workers, teachers and doctors worked along
very closely with them in the care of the children.
Mr. Pedrosa stated that relative to the next door neighbors claim that the block
wall fence around the property was only four and one-half feet high, the fence,
in fact, was 6 feet high. He emphasized however that even if a fence was smaller,
it would not make much difference because the children were supervised 24 hours
a day.
78-596
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Ken Brandt, Community Organization Specialist for the Regional Center of
Orange County, spoke for Manny Mendez, member of the Area Board, who was not
able to stay at the meeting. Mr. Mendez asked him to relay the following:
the Area Developmental Disabilities Board was responsible for monitoring
services provided to individuals with developmental disabilities in Orange
County. The Board firmly believed in the concept of serving individuals
who did not need hospitalization in a community atmosphere. Those individuals
grew and developed much better when they had positive relationships with
neighbors and friends living in a normal environment as opposed to a hospital
environment.
Mr. John Flynn, Social Worker for Regional Center of Orange County, explained if
a question were to arise as to supervision of the children or relative to the
Pedrosas during the children's stay, it was his responsibility to oversee and
maintain that aspect. The Regional Center mandated that social workers make
monthly contact with the providers and usually it was more frequent. They
also wrote quarterly reports which were submitted to the Regional Center and
gave an annual review relative to the child's progress while in the home. Based
on what the care provider and school were doing regarding the child, if at that
time the Regional Center staff felt the child should be moved to a different
facility that would be less restrictive, more restrictive, etc. the child would
be moved. In the last 10 months with the 2 children he supervised in the Pedrosa
home, there had never been any instances of the children acting up or getting
into the neighbors business. They were well supervised and the Pedrosas provided
the best kind of family environment any care provider could provide. Both parents
of both children he supervised living in that home recommended the Pedrosas. If
that were not the case, they too would recommend a move.
Jackie Nelson, Parkview School, Garden Grove, explained that she had known the
Pedrosas for 3 years and taught 2 of their children. Parkview was a normal
elementary school with 3 classes for special education and the 2 children
were handicapped to the extent that they had problems learning things that
normal children learned easily between the ages of 2 and 5. They needed a
great deal of extra help which the Pedrosas provided. Relative to discipline,
the children did not cause any problems and they were not inclined to take off
and run around the neighborhood. They needed and accepted a considerable amount
of structure, and once they had that, they would want to stay in a particular
situation because it provided emotional security. They never tried to run away
from the classroom or the unfenced playground area. She communicated with the
Pedrosas daily through a written book and she was frequently in their home and
spoke to them by phone. Regarding her experience with care providers, the
Pedrosas were in the highest bracket.
Mr. Lloyd Woodson, 1180 Chateau Avenue, stated that his grandson, born blind,
was one of the children in the Pedrosa home and was doing well under their care.
They had visited the home several times and during every visit, it was noted
that the children were better behaved than the average child of the same age.
They were never allowed outside of their yard unless supervised. He maintained
that the handicapped children would not lower the surrounding property value
any more than a normal child who could run and play.
78-597
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Gloria Turashike, a neighbor of the Pedrosas spoke as a representative for the
neighborhood. She lived directly across the street from the Pedrosas and had
3 children of her own who were always playing at the Pedrosa home. Retarded
children had not hurt or harmed her children in any way and other children in
the neighborhood had learned to accept them and did not make fun of them. They
were not a hindrance, but an asset to the neighborhood and were quiet, well-
mannered and well kept. The opposition had broached the matter of the children
getting into their swimming pool. She had a pool as well as other neighbors, and
never once had experienced the problem with the retarded children, but with the
normal children. They thought highly of the Pedrosas and did not want to see
them leave their neighborhood.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition; there being no response,
he closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the Pedrosas intended to move from Garden Grove to
the home in Anaheim in order to care for more children.
Ms. Wolf stated that was correct. They wanted to take the children they presently
had (4) and move into the new facility which had 6 bedrooms and thus could accommo-
date up to a maximum of 6 children.
In answer to questions posed by Councilman Kott, Miss Santalahti stated that the
objections given by the 6 people at the Planning Commission hearing were those
basically outlined by Ms. Wolf, primarily that the children would climb over
fences and be unsupervised. One person was an immediate neighbor.
City Attorney Hopkins then clarified for Councilman Kott that the State Welfare
and Institutions Code, Section 5116, provided that homes shall be permitted uses
in residential zones including, but not limited to residential zones for single-
families. It had been interpreted by the courts to require cities to allow such
child care facilities in a residential area.
Mayor Seymour stated that considering the testimony received, he had no objection
to personally granting approval of the CUP and the presentation answered all of
the concerns he had relative to his setting the matter for a public hearing. Now,
rather than being concerned for the neighborhood, he was happy for it. The neigh-
borhood would have an opportunity to gain a very positive learning experience
considering the very fine qualified people involved as well as the other agencies
insuring the proper type of supervision.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that this
project will have no significant effect on the environment and-is exempt from
the requirement to prepare an EIR. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-312 for adoption, granting Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1813, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
78-598
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-312: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1813.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-312 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 5 minutes. (4:57 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Roth. (5:02 P.M.)
113: SELF-INSURED ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM - SOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS: City
Attorney Hopkins explained that the present agreement with Carl Warren, the
company presently handling the City's liability claims administration, would
expire on June 30, 1978. He therefore requested by motion that the Council
authorize him to solicit bids and proposals for the program which was discussed
with the City Manager's office and in which they concurred.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney
was authorized to solicit proposals for the self-insured administration program.
Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
142: SURVEY OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ON POLITICAL SIGN CONTROL ORDINANCES: Assis-
tant City Manager Hopkins referred to a report dated May 10, 1978, from the City
Manager's office generated as the result of a request made by the Council direct-
ing staff to conduct surveys of various cities to determine what controls were
used to regulate the use of political campaign signs. He recommended that any
further action be postponed until the City Attorney's office could supply further
input into the situation as there appeared to be some difficulty with ordinances
adopted by other cities as to whether or not they could be enforced.
Councilman Kott stated that in reviewing the report, he saw no possibility for
enforcement of such an ordinance and no practical approach to the problem.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, report on
survey of California cities on political sign control ordinances was received
and filed and the City Attorney was directed to supply input relative to the
report in two weeks. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
115: ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER - ROOFING AND WATERPROOFING BOND COSTS: On motion
by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the report from the
City Engineer regarding Anaheim Civic Center roofing and waterproofing bond
costs was continued for two weeks at the request of staff. Councilman Roth
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
78-599
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
123/167: CALCOMP REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL PARTICIPATION ON CORONADO STREET:
(continued from May 2, 1978) Mr. Steve Robinson, Manager for Security and
Safety at Calcomp, stated that his company agreed to pay one-half the cost
of the installation ($8,000) of a traffic signal on Coronado Street, east
of Kraemer Boulevard, and after the installation was complete, they also
agreed to pay for the total cost of ongoing maintenance.
The Mayor asked Traffic Engineer Paul Singer what the installation would
then cost the City.
Mr. Singer stated that in order to reduce costs and considering Calcomp's
willingness to pay $8,000 towards the construction, the City could use some
surplus equipment that would be compatible to the need. In the arrangement
suggested, the total cost would be approximately $12,000, thus the cost to the
City would be $4,000. Mr. Singer also stated that they would like to be notified
when the signal was no longer necessary so that the equipment could be removed.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Attorney
was directed to prepare an agreement with Calcomp for the installation of a
traffic signal at the subject location with Calcomp to pay $8,000 towards the
installation as well as monthly maintenance costs.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that it appeared they were
continually waiving policies. In general, she was opposed to such an arrangement,
but considering Calcomp was going to bear the maintenance costs, the impact would
not be as great in this instance.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
142: CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS: (continued from May 9, 1978) On
behalf of Councilman Roth, Mayor Seymour nominated Mr. Jack Ward, 1736 Greenleaf,
Anaheim, and Mr. Gaylen Compton, 2304 East Cliffpark Avenue, Anaheim, to the
Charter Review Committee. He noted that Councilman Overholt had also submitted
the names of Mrs. Jo Ann Barnett, 313 North Plantation Place, Anaheim, and
Mr. Donald F. Lee, 1113 West Park Avenue, Anaheim. Councilwoman Kaywood nominated
Mr. Ben Bay, 2148 West Grayson Avenue, Anaheim, and Mr. Dan VanDorpe, 863 South
Jasper Circle, Anaheim. Councilman Seymour nominated Mrs. Judy Olsen, 909 Echo
Place, Anaheim, and Mrs. Kathy Walden, 2632 East Gelid Court.
Councilman Kott stated that he did not have any names to submit today and reiterated
his belief that such appointees were pawns and the Council was nominating people
to do their bidding. He had not as yet been able to find anyone on which he could
impose his will.
A brief discussion followed wherein Councilman Overholt took exception to Council-
man Kott's comment regarding the appointment of pawns, especially as it pertained
to one of his appointees. Mayor Seymour also commented on the philosophical differ-
ences that existed between himself and one of his appointees. Councilwoman Kaywo0d
stated if an attitude prevailed as expressed by Councilman Kott, then the City did
not need to have any committees, boards or commissions. She had always searched
for the best qualified person to serve and considered it an honor to be appointed
to boards, committees or commissions for the City.
78-600
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the nominees
to the Charter Review Committee as appointed by Councilman Overholt, Councilwoman
Kaywood, Councilmen Roth and Seymour were approved. Councilman Roth was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
105: TENANT COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON HOUSING COMMISSION:
Mayor Seymour referred to the previous meeting wherein Mrs. Patricia Bayley was
nominated as Tenant Commissioner, and Councilwoman Kaywood requested that action
be continued one week to also consider the introduction of other nominees.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she spoke with the two people who acted as the Screen-
ing Committee on the Housing Commission and found that they had recommended four
people for consideration. She also discovered that a requirement from HUD stipu-
lated that there be two Tenant Commissioners, one elderly and/or handicapped and
the other head of a family. The person the committee felt would be best qualified
to fill the requirements was a Vietnamese woman Thu Ahn Tron who was the head of
a household with 4 children to support. She was also a welfare eligibility worker
for the County of Orange. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon submitted her name in
nomination.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, nominations for
Tenant Commissioner on the Housing Commission were closed. Councilman Roth was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour thereupon requested a roll call vote on the nomination of
Patricia Bayley. The nomination failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kott and Seymour
Overholt and Kaywood
Roth
Councilman Seymour requested a roll call vote on the nomination of Thu Ahn Tron.
The nomination failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt and Kaywood
Kaywood and Seymour
Roth
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, appointment of
a Tenant Commissioner to fill a vacancy on the Housing Commission for the term
ending June 30, 1981, was continued for two weeks. Councilman Roth was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
105: VACANCIES ON COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: The City Clerk referred to a commun-
ication dated May 15, 1978, from the Community Services Board advising that Anita
Castro and Rene Lopez had resigned from the Board in addition to one existing vacancy
and recommending that, as members were replaced, Flo Tarlton and Alice Ybarra be
considered to serve.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the resignations
of Anita Castro and Rene Lopez from the Community Services Board were accepted
with regret. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES May 16~ 1978~
- 1:30 P.M.
78-601
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had received a copy of the resume on
Flo Tarlton who she personally knew. She was a tireless worker for the Red
Cross, and she believed her to be an excellent prospect for the Community
Services Board, and thus offered her name in nomination. Councilman Seymour
offered the name of Alice Ybarra.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, nominations
were closed. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
The City Clerk confirmed that one appointment could be made, but the additional
two vacancies would have to be advertised accordingly. Councilman Seymour
thereupon withdrew his nomination of Alice Ybarra. Councilwoman Kaywood stated
however that she wanted her name held in abeyance because Ms. Ybarra came highly
recommended.
Councilman Seymour requested a roll call vote on the nomination of Flo Tarlton
to fill the unexpired term of Angle Luna on the Community Services Board for the
term ending June 30, 1980. The appointment was approved by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the appoint-
ments of Joel Klein, A1 Peraza and Janice Billings were renewed with terms to
expire June 30, 1982. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - KATELLA AVENUE-EUCLID STREET-BROADWAY STREET IMPROVEMENT:
(Account Nos. 13-4309-745-16-0000, 13-4309-705-16-0000 and 13-4309-744-16-0000)
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-313 for adoption, awarding a contract
to the low bidder in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer in
his memorandum dated May 8, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-313: 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: KATELLA AVENUE, EUCLID STREET AND BROADWAY STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 13-4309-705-16-0000, 13-4309-745-
16-0000, 13-4309-744-16-0000. (Blair Paving, $254,011)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-313 duly passed and adopted.
78-6[ 2
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
156: ANAHEIM POLICE HELIPORT ADDITION: (Account No. 10-43804-987-09-0000)
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the award of
contract on the Anaheim Police Heliport addition was continued one week at the
request of staff. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded
by Councilman Overholt, application for Public Fireworks Display Permit, filed
by Pyrotronics Corporation to discharge fireworks for Tommy Walker Productions
at Anaheim Stadium on July 4, 1978, starting at dusk, was approved and the Plan-
ing Director's determination that the activity is categorically exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIR was ratified. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
151: SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT NO. 77-119 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request submitted by
Donald P. Johnson, Anza Management Company, for a six months' extension of time to
Special Events Permit No. 77-119, allowing temporary display of 10 flags at a new
apartment project located at 5601 East Orangethorpe Avenue.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the subject
request for an extension of time to Special Events Permit No. 77-119 was approved
retroactive to April 7, 1978 to expire October 7, 1978, as recommended by the
Zoning Division in their memorandum dated May 10, 1978. Councilman Roth was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1679 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by David W. Hook,
Sunset Construction, Inc., for an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit
No. 1679, to permit a 3-story office complex on C-R zoned property located on
the southwest corner of Freedman Way and Manchester Avenue.
Councilman Seymour moved to approve the subject request for an extension of
time on Conditional Use Permit No. 1679, retroactive to February 8, 1978, to
expire February 8, 1979, subject to the developer dedicating the requested right-
of-way and posting improvement bonds within 90 days. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Under discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know if the portion that was to
be dedicated represented the complete amount needed for right-of-way, and if in
fact there could be a building built to prevent the overcrossing for Haster Street.
Miss Santalahti answered that the application was in accordance with the City's
General Plan, but did not represent what the State would be acquiring. It was
also possible that a building could be constructed that would prevent the over-
crossing.
Mayor Seymour interjected that was a possibility at the time the project was
originally approved. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was not necessarily true
because there was no money in the Caltrans budget at that time, whereas $600,000
was allocated in the 1978-79 Budget for the overcrossing.
City Engineer James Maddox stated that right-of-way appraisals were to be completed
by July 1978, and the State should complete acquisition of right-of-way by December
of 1979 with construction planned for May 1980.
78-603
_City H.all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MaZ 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott asked if the usual procedure was to wait for financing by the
applicant to submit easement deeds. He was trying to ascertain why the project
had not gone forward.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the applicant would be in the best position
to answer that, but financing was an important element in order to proceed with
the project.
Mr. David Hook, Sunset Construction, Inc., explained that the project was delayed
because there was a 10-foot wide strip on Haster/Manchester that they did not own.
They negotiated with Mr. Freedman subsequently to buy the property so they could,
in turn, dedicate it to the City. They were now in a position to deed the land
to the City.
The Mmyor stated that Councilman Kott basically wanted to know why Sunset Construc-
tion had not done what they could already have accomplished based on conditions
of approval.
Mr. Hook continued that one of the conditions of the resolution was to dedicate
street right-of-way and they were now in a position to do so. If reference was
to the alignment of the freeway overpass, as explained, they had acqu'ired the
extra land through Mr. Freedman. Their concern revolved around the imminent en-
actment of Title 24 and therefore, they had to approach the Building Department
before the end of the month otherwise they would have to redesign a building that
was designed for the site. When they first approached the Council, the State
issued a letter stating they had no plans for the freeway alignment. So, Sunset
Construction proceeded to acquire the conditional use permit. They hired an
architect and at the same time acquired the property at a very high price. In
July 1977, the City Engineer contacted his office and stated that the State was
renewing their interest, but they (Sunset) had not received any notification
from the State. They had been waiting to hear since 1969 relative to the consid-
eration of the freeway alignment and in the meantime had been paying taxes on
the property. Now they wanted Sunset to wait another 20 months. Costs had escalated
considerably during the interim, whereas they could have constructed their project
the prior year at a 40 percent savings. Now there was a possibility that they
could wait another 20 months and the State could say they did not wish to buy
the land.
In concluding, Mr. Hook stated that their intent was to pull a building permit and
pay the Building Department a fee for plan checking and thus require the State to
respond in a speedy fashion. Otherwise, they would proceed to construct the
building and then the State would be required to purchase not only the land, but
also the added improvement.
Councilman Kott suggested that if Mr. Hook found himself in an untenable position,
that the property could always be offered for sale. Mr. Hook emphasized that it
~resently was not a marketable commodity under the circumstances.
Further discussion followed wherein Mr. Hook stated that he would comply with the
conditions as outlined in memorandum dated May 10, 1978, from the Assistant Director
for Zoning, Item No. 4-a through v, if the extension were granted, and he reiterated
they were prepared to make the dedication of the strip of land along Manchester.
78-604
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hook then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that they could not build their
buildings to avoid being in the right-of-way for the Haster overcrossing if that
came to pass. If they did so, there would be no ingress or egress to their prop-
erty other than through the industrial park to the south. Thus the property
would not be desirable for office space unless access could be gained from
Manchester or Freedman Way.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she considered the Haster Street overcrossing to be
vital and of benefit to the entire City of Anaheim, being the gateway to Disneyland,
the Convention Center and the Stadium. Therefore, there was no way she could
vote favorably on the request. She maintained the land must remain available.
Mr. Hook agreed with Councilwoman Kaywood, but contended that action would prompt
the State to move on the matter faster than 2 additional years with the expectation
that some positive word would be received from Caltrans. Thus far, they had received
no formal notification from the State and he did not believe that to be fair to
them as a taxpayer.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that although that was true, she did not believe the
action to be fair, because if Sunset proceeded to build and Caltrans had to buy
the building back, all taxpayers would have to pay more.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion for an extension of time and failed
to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the request
for an extension of time on Conditional Use Permit No. 1679 was continued two
weeks for full Council action. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1785: (Joseph Conrad)
Relative to Mr. Conrad's request for additional time on the subject Order to Show
Cause set for May 30, 1978, Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was her contention the
matter should not be extended further. She pointed to the fact that the use was
originally initiated without the benefit of a permit, and she did not believe that
the applicant was so unsophisticated as to think no permit was required. As well,
the living conditions for the neighbors immediately abutting the use were untenable,
and the applicant had not mitigated those conditions in order to make for a more
favorable living environment.
City Clerk Linda Roberts then read Mr. Conrad's letter aloud at the request of
Mayor Seymour.
Although the Mayor agreed with Councilwoman Kaywood, he maintained that Mr. Conrad
had every right to be represented by legal counsel and the Council should afford
him that right.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the hearing on Order
to Show Cause why Conditional Use Permit No. 1785 Should not be revoked was reset to
June 13, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. (previously scheduled for May 30, 1978, 7:30 P.M.).
Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt stated his vote was conditioned on no further continuance.
78-605
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman
Kott, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
a. 114: City of Buena Park Resolution No. 6247 urging the State Legislature
to amend Penal Code 313 and 313.1 by redefining "Harmful Matter to Minors"
b. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of May 1, 1978.
c. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of April 25, 1978.
d. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of April 6 and 20, 1978.
e. 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of April 26, 1978.
f. 107/175: Monthly reports for April 1978 - Building and Customer Service
Divisions.
Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Kott offered Resolution Nos. 78R-314
through 78R-318, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-314: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Canyon Plaza
Development Corp.; Canyon Plaza Development Corp.; Stanley E. Hanson; Thomas E.
Smail, et al.; Theodore K. Sideris, et ux.; Glenn M. Kirk, et ux.; PhYllis Piper;
Al~en Myers, et ux.; Walter H. Riesterer, et ux.; Richard C. Hunsaker, et ux.;
Parkewood Village; Walter Kwock, et al.; Anaheim Savings and Loan Association)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-315: 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: LA PALMA AVENUE
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, LAKEVIEW AVENUE, E/O KELLOGG DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 10-4309-731-16-0000; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS,
AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED
PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened June 15, 1978, 2:00 P.M.)
164/174: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-316: 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: CORONADO-RED GUM-MIRALOMA
STORM DRAIN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 889, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4309-729-
16-0889. (Didovic Construction Company)
78-606
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
150/174: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-317: 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: BROOKHURST COMMUNITY
BUILDING, SECOND STAGE CONSTRUCTION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 881,
CA-0806-0, EDA 07-51-08031, ACCOUNT NO. 16-4309-812-18-0000. (Near-Cai Corporation)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-318: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE
EASEMENT. (Abandonment No. 77-16A, west of Peralta Hills Drive, south of Santa
Ana Canyon Road, public hearing set for June 6, 1978, 3:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-314 through 78R-318, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the'City Planning
Commission at their meeting held April 24, 1978, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-50 AND VARIANCE NO. 2998: Submitted by Elmer C.
and Elizabeth B. Drews, Central Baptist Church of Orange County, and Roland J.
Jensen, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-4000, to construct a 146-unit
condominium complex on property located on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, north
of Lincoln Avenue with certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-77 and Pc78-78,
granted Reclassification No. 77-78-50 and Variance No. 2998, respectively, in
part, and granted negative neclaration status.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-55 AND VARIANCE NO. 3006: Submitted by Robert
M. Law, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to construct a retail
carpet store on property located at 408 South Beach Boulevard with code waiver
of minimum number of required parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-79 and PC78-80,
granted Reclassification No. 77-78-55 and Variance No. 3006, respectively, and
granted negative declaration status.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-56 AND VARIANCE NO. 3008: Submitted by Halbert
I. Hickman and Ackmer Building Corporation, for a change in zone from RS-HS-10,000
to RS-7200 to establish a 4-lot, single-family subdivision on property located at
1000 North Lomita Street with certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-81 and PC78-82,
granted Reclassification No. 77-78-56 and Variance No. 3008, respectively, and
granted negative declaration status.
78-607
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
4. VARIANCE NO. 2999: Submitted by Robert P. Warmington Company, to retain an
existing 6-foot high block wall with code waiver of maximum wall height on
RS-5000(SC) zoned property located at 6528 Marengo Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-89, granted Variance
No. 2999 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
5. VARIANCE NO. 3007: Submitted by Palmall Properties, Incorporated, to construct
a liquor store with code waiver of minimum front setback on CH and CG zoned property
located at 1040 South Harbor Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-83, granted Variance
No. 3007 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1820: Submitted by The Euclid Romneya Company,
to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant on CL zoned property
located at 1240 North Euclid Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-84, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1820, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1822: Submitted by Marcus A. and Kamen S. Gartner,
to permit a drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property located on the west
side of State College boulevard, north of Center Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-85, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1822, and granted negative declaration status.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1823: Submitted by Foremost-McKesson, Inc., to
p~rmit a truck and trailer rental yard with incidental truck repair on ML zoned
property located at 620 East Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-86, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1823, and granted negative declaration status.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1824: Submitted by J. P. Edmondson Properties,
Limited, to permit an automobile rental agency on RS-A-43,000 zoned property
located at 1400 South Harbor Boulevard with code waiver of minimum front setback.
Request for Conditional Use Permit No. 1824 was withdrawn by the petitioner.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1827: Submitted by John H. and Valerie S. Scudder,
to permit a retail automotive parts store on ML zoned property'located at 1550 South
Anaheim Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-88, granted Conditional
Use Permit No. 1827 for a period of two years and ratified the Planning Director's
categorical exemption determination.
78-608
~ity. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
11. VARIANCE NO. 2495 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Neville D. Libby for an
extension of time to Variance No. 2495 to permit a mobilehome in conjunction with
an existing single-family residence on property located at 1661 West Cerritos Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved said extension of time to Variance No. 2495
to expire May 10, 1979.
12. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9751 (REV. 1): Request submitted by Bill Hezmalhalch,
Danielian Moon & Associates, for approval of revised specific plot plan, floor
plans and elevations to establish a proposed RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoned 40-lot
subdivision on property located southwest of Nohl Ranch Road and Anaheim Hills
Road.
The City Planning Commission approved the revised specific plot plan, floor plans
and elevations for Tentative Tract No. 9751 (REV. 1).
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning
Commission became final.
REPORT - LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING: Recommended by the City Planning
Commission that a study be conducted.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated for informational purposes that last year she visited
a mobile home manufacturing firm to view their modular units and there was a
possibility of a pilot program that could be instituted in Anaheim.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the report
relating to low and moderate income housing was received and filed. Councilman
Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 543 - REVISED PLANS: Submitted by Robert D. Murray,
Anaheim Church of Christ, requesting approval of revised plans for Conditional
Use Permit No. 543, to create two RS-A-43,000 lots and to establish a church
facility on the rear lot of property located on the north side of Orange Avenue,
west of Euclid Street.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, revised plans
for Conditional Use Permit No. 543 were approved as requested. Councilman Roth
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3857 THROUGH 3859: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos.
3857 through 3859, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
149: ORDINANCE NO. 3857: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.420 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING
RESTRICTED TO FACILITATE STREET SWEEPING. (no parking on portions of Bush, Cypress,
Rose and Vine streets, Thursday, 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon)
149: ORDINANCE NO. 3858: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO
SUBSECTIONS .1010 AND .1020 RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (no parking, Mohler
Drive between Santa Ana Canyon Road & Del Giorgio Road and Del Giorgio Road)
78-609
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3859: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(84), ML)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3857 through 3859, both inclusive, duly passed
and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3860 AND 3861: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance Nos. 3860
and 3861 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3860: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-30(8), RS-7200, Tract
No. 9821)
ORDINANCE NO. 3861: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-46 (8), RS-HS-10,000,
Tract No. 9821)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3860 and 3861 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3862 AND 3863: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 3862
and 3863 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3862: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-21(1), ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 3863: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-46, RM-1200)
114: LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING WITH COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY: Councilman
Overholt stated that he attended the second Liaison Committee meeting on May 15,
1978, with the Community Center Authority at the Convention Center which was
duly noted as a liaison meeting since there was a probability ~hat the Mayor
would also attend. He reported they were moving with deliberate haste in
acquiring additional property in the area for Betterment Program II.
119: "MEALS ON WHEELS": Councilwoman Kaywood stated that a letter was received
from the Anaheim Board of Directors of "Meals on Wheels" thanking the Council for
the proclamation issued to them. They were very grateful and she, too, was
grateful that Anaheim had such a program.
78-610
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
179: REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Councilman Kott reiterated his feelings
relative to granting extensions of time in zoning matters wherein many times
after extensions had been granted, the projects never came to fruition. He
referred specifically to a proposed project wherein a psychiatric hospital was
to be constructed at McKinnon and Lakeview (southeast corner) involving 7 acres
which were zoned and thereafter extensions granted. Subsequently, however, 3
acres were sold and the remaining 4 acres could now be purchased for the cost
of the original 7 acres. He wanted to call the matter to the Council's attention
since he considered they were being used by developers.
Mayor Seymour agreed that extensions of time should not be used as a tool by
speculating developers to gain profit. However, the way he viewed extensions,
if the project were to come before him just as presented originally, he would
approve the extension, the reason being, it cut the red tape of the bureacracy
in insuring that a project would proceed without going through lengthy delibera-
tions and delays caused by government.
114: PERMISSION TO LEAVE THE STATE FOR 90 DAYS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Seymour, request for permission to leave the state for
90 days by Councilman Seymour for the trip to Mito, Japan was approved. Council-
man Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
1--06: REQUEST FOR COPY OF BUDGET: Mayor Seymour requested that Cit~ Manager Talley
provide him with a copy of the 1978-79 Budget before he left on his trip to Japan
no matter what form it was in at present.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into Executive
Session. (5:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present with the exception of Councilman Roth. (6:32 P.M.)
112: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY - AGRICULTURAL APPLICATIONS, INC. AND AETNA LIFE
AND CASUALTY COMPANY: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman
Kott, the City Attorney was authorized to settle the claim against the City
filed by Agricultural Applications, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $2,500
and the claim against the City filed by Aetna Life and Casualty Company for
an amount not to exceed $391.76. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENT TO ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL~ INC. (OCCDC):
Mayor Seymour stated that the OCCDC wanted a member of the Council to participate
on the Board of Directors. Since he suspected that the Council had sufficient
duties, he did not believe that they would have time to serve, and he thus asked
the Board if anybody else could serve. Since that was possible, he had a name
he wished the Council to consider for nomination, that being Mr. Ben Bay. However,
if a member of the Council wished to serve, that would be acceptable. If anyone
had any questions relative to the nomination or if the Council preferred, he
suggested that action could be delayed until the next Tuesday.
78-6]1
.City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Ben
Bay was nominated to serve on the Orange County Community Development Council,
Inc. to participate on the Board of Directors. Councilman Roth was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Overholt moved to adjourn. Councilman Seymour seconded
the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:40 P.M.