1978/06/13 78-731
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
RISK MANAGER: Jack Love
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS DIRECTOR: James Ruth
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER-GOLF DIRECTOR: Tom Liegler
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Phil Schwartze
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Whitey Walp
DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Tug Tamaru
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, minutes
of the regular meeting held March 21, 1978 and adjourned regular meeting held
March 27, 1978 were approved subject to typographical corrections. Councilman
Overholt abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Kott moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,676,575.41, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
123: NON-RESIDENTIAL RENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE AGENCY FOR THIRD FLOOR EL CAMINO
BANK BUILDING: Report recommending approval of the proposed agreement which would
lease from the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency the third floor of the E1 Camino Bank
Building, 106 North .Claudina Street, to be occupied by the Housing and Neighborhood
Preservation Divisions at a rental of $1,200 per month was presented by Mr. Priest,
who also explained that these rental fees are in turn reimbursed to the City out of
Federal funds.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-372 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
78-732
City Hall~ ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jun~ 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-372: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A RENTAL AGREEMENT WITH ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-372 duly passed and adopted.
125/153: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT MUNICIPAL DATA SYSTEMS FOR DATA PROCESSING SERVICES:
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the proposed agree-
ment to extend Data Processing services for MDS to June 30, 1979, was continued
to the meeting of June 20, 1978 for further input and discussion by Mr. Tamaru and
representatives of MDS. MOTION CARRIED.
123: THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION FOR DATA
PROCESSING SERVICES: Report from the Data Processing Director recommending approval
of the proposed Third Amendment to the agreement was submitted.
Councilman Kott questioned the statement at the conclusion of the Data Processing
Director's report noting that it appears ambiguous as to whether or not the City
will be recovering all costs incurred from the $12,000 income received as a result
of this contract.
Mayor Seymour questioned, in addition, what benefits the City receives through
this arrangement. He noted that this contract has been in existence for the same
$1,000 fee for the last 4 years, which seems to him unrealistic, all costs have
risen in that period of time.
Mr. Talley explained that the City benefits from the publishing of the Manpower
Commission reports on a timely basis; that the Data Processing Department has been
and is contemplating recovering all costs in connection with this contract;
that the more revenue sources among which the City can spread the Data Processing
cost base, the less expense there is to the General Fund.
Mayor Seymour stated that this agreement demonstrates a principle involved with
which he does not agree. He explained that if the City were to have several of
these types of Data Processing contracts, they may have a number of employees just
to satisfy the contract requirements which may or may not be profitable to the
City. He again questioned the cost and financial benefits to ~he City as a re-
sult of the contracts.
Mr. Tamaru responded that full costs are covered in this particular contract as
it is a rather simple batch type of run. There is capacity on the computer to
perform this work and if the City does not accept this work contract, then it
will lose that $1,000 per month fee. He advised that they are now developing
a cost system which should be operational after July 1 at which time a specific
cost information would be available.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-733
Mayor Seymour noted that although this is a small contract, there is still
the principle involved and if the City is just recovering costs, why should
they continue the relationship.
Mr. Talley summarized that for each of these types of contracts the City loses,
the City of Anaheim's General Fund contribution to Data Processing will go up.
The profit is actually the amount of the base added by the particular agreement
because if this is not added, then that amount is picked up by the Anaheim tax-
payer.
Councilwoman Kaywood remarked that this agreement will be effective only to
October 1, 1978 in any case, inasmuch as the Orange County Manpower Commission
has other arrangements for these services after that date and therefore this
extension is only for a 4-month period. She also noted that if the City were
to terminate this service, normally they would give the user a period of time
in which to obtain another supplier.
In response to Mayor Seymour, Mr. Tamaru advised that this contract expired
6 months ago and some of the billing has been held up due to the lack of an
agreement.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No.
78R-373 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-373: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE
COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
SAID AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
Kott and Seymour
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-373 duly passed and adopted.
123/150: AGREEMENT WITH LOUIS HENNING~ INC. REGARDING PURCHASE OF STATE-OWNED
ADJACENT TO CITRON PARK: In response to Councilman Kott, Mr. Ruth explained
that he has been working with Mr. Hennig for some time, and they have come up
with what appears to be an agreeable solution to mutually establish certain
rights and duties for the prospective purchase of State-owned property. He
explained that the City has the first right of refusal on the 34,829 square
feet of property in question located between the Hennig Auto Body' Company and
Citron Park. However, if the City were to acquire the property, it would not
be possible legally to convey any portion of it to Mr. Hennig or anyone else
who would use it for a commercial or industrial purpose, as the City would have
applied for it to be used for recreational purposes. Therefore, pursuant to
this agreement, Mr. Hennig will bid for the land at public auction and if acquired
will deed a small portion of it to the City for expansion of Citron Park; and in
turn, the City will give Mr. Hennig 3,700 square feet of property necessary for
him to maintain his bus and truck paint and body business at that location.
78-7~4
City Hall~ Anahelm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-374 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-374: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND LOUIS HENNIG, INC. DBA HENNIG AUTO PAINT AND BODY COMPANY, AND AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-374 duly passed and adopted.
174: AGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO SUMMER YOUTH PROGRAM FOR ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
YOUTH: Memorandum from the Personnel Director recommending three agreements be
approved to implement the proposed Summer Youth Program for economically disadvan-
taged youth under Title III of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act was
submitted. Said agreements to be retroactive to June 1, 1978 and expiring
September 30, 1978.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 78R-375 through 78R-377, both
inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-375: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER
COMMISSION RELATING TO MANPOWER PROGRAMS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-376: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND THE NORTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT RELATING TO A LABOR MARKET
ORIENTATION COMPONENT FOR THE SUMMER PROGRAM FOR ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED YOUTH.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-377: A RESOLUTION OF %HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AND THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, INC., RELATING TO
A SUMMER PROGRAM FOR ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED YOUTH.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-375 through 78R-377, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
78-755
City.. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June .!3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
103: PROPOSED ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NOS. 24 AND 26: Submitted were reports~
from the Planning Department and proposed resolutions requesting the Local Agency
Formation Commission to approve the proposed Anaheim Hills Nos. 24 and 26 Annexa-
tions, consisting of approximately 2.5 acres located south of Nohl Ranch Road
and approximately one-half mile east of Villareal Drive, and 34.29 acres located
southwest of Nohl Ranch Road and Imperial Highway, respectively.
In response to Councilman Kott's inquiry regarding potential cost to the City as
a result of the annexations, Mr. Phil Schwartze replied that they had not run the
cost/benefit model on these two particular annexations, however, because the infra-
structure is already in for these two areas, he would estimate they would represent
a break-even situation.
Mr. Schwartze added that they are finalizing adjustments to the cost/benefit model
with the effects of Proposition 13 and initial runs show that any residential pro-
ject will be a fiscal drain on the City.
Mr. Phil Bettencourt, representing Anaheim Hills, Inc., described the areas proposed
for annexation and displayed an area map of same.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-378 and 78R-379 for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-378: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN
UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 24. (2.5 acres
located south of Nohl Ranch Road and east of Villareal Drive)
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-379: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATIONS OF
CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 26.
(34.29 acres southwest of Nohl Ranch Road, and Imperial Highway)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour~
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-378 and 78R-379 duly passed and adopted.
180: ERRORS AND OMISSIONS POLICY FOR PUBLIC OFFICIAL LIABILITY: Mayor Seymour,
noting that 4 members of the City Council have gone on record one year ago asking
for errors and omissions insurance to cover their decisions as'Council Members,
questioned now why Mr. Love is recommending this matter be postponed once again
until September 1, 1978. He stressed that until such coverage is provided, each
of the Council Members is openly exposed to any law suit as individuals. He stated
that he knew of no private corporation without errors and omissions coverage for
its officers and that he did not believe the citizens of Anaheim expected their
elected representatives to put their total individual financial worth on the line
each Tuesday.
78-736
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Love responded that in terms of errors and omissions insurance, as long
as the act in question was performed in the course and scope of employment or
service for the municipality, then the City is obligated to defend the action
and pay any judgment. If the act goes beyond the area which is within the
scope of employment, there is a serious policy question as to whether Council
wants to purchase that type of insurance.
Mr. Hopkins corroborated that the City does have the obligation to defend employees
or officials in such law suits as stated, but there are many cases where the City
might not be obligated to provide defense and these could go into protracted liti-
gation which would be very expensive. He concluded that certainly errors and
omissions insurance coverage for public officials, if it is available at reasonable
cost, would be warranted.
Councilman Roth pointed that as an example the Albany, California case in which
a Council Member lost a law suit and was required to pay the judgment out of his
personal holdings. He noted that he has to carry this type of insurance coverage
in his business and certainly felt the City Council Members should be provided
this protection.
Councilman Overholt explained that he is personally a defendant in a suit for
$36 million brought against individual officials of another public ageDcy, and
that he believes it is absolutely essential for the City Council Members to have
this type of coverage. He commented that the problem seems to be even $10 million
worth of coverage might not be sufficient with the type of judgments recently
awarded. He stated as he understood it, in seeking this coverage there is a
difference between a judgment for general damages and a judgment for punitive
damages against a public official and that coverage cannot be obtained for
punitive damages. He was of the opinion that it might be well to have this
point clarified.
Mayor Seymour stated that he had thought mistakenly this matter had been resolved
a long time ago.
Mr. Talley replied that the Council had asked staff to look into the matter, but
he did not recall being directed to purchase this insurance.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Risk
Manager was directed to bind immediately to provide errors and omissions insurance
for City Council Members; to ascertain the best bids for this type of insurance
coverage; and to prepare a report within two to three weeks time indicating what
other cities are doing in this field. MOTION CARRIED.
180: EXCESS LIABILITY COVERAGE: Report dated June 7, 1978, prepared by the
Risk Manager recommending that the Council reject and file the letters of offer
for excess liability coverage and that furthe~ attempts be made to obtain said
coverage at a later date, was submitted for Council consideration.
Mayor Seymour commented, in response to Mr. Love's indication in the report that
there is a need for an updated engineering study of the City's dams, the State of
California Division of Dams inspects these on an annual basis and on the last inspec-
tion, no problems were encountered.
78-737
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Love noted that the last complete study of the dams was done in 1973; that
the Utilities Department has shared his concern and will have an engineering
study and inundation study updated by August 21, 1978.
Mayor Seymour explained that Mr. Hal Parker of Continental General Insurance ·
Company had advised that the question on liability is not the integrity of the
dam, but rather the amount of liability downstream if one breaks, which would
appear to be clearly in excess of $10 million.
Mr. Hal Parker was recognized by the Mayor and concurred with this statment,
noting that the last inundation study was done in 1973 by the City Water Divi-
sion and the report filed with the State of California Division of Dam Safety
as required by law. Mr. Parker advised that the problem arises in that there
have been many homes and business centers developed in Zone III since the last
study and there is no way to determine the volume of water disbursement to indicate
what the depth might be at various sites. He noted that integrity of the dam has
never been the question; that the underwriters have chosen to accept the California
Division of Dam Safety report since the State of California has the most rigid
dam safety laws in the United States. In addition, he stated that his interpre-
tation of the Warren, McVeigh and Griffin report was that they felt the amount
of insurance the City was carrying was inadequate and they recommended increase
in coverage to $20 million.
Mayor Seymour stated that he is aware Mr. Love's recommendation is made on the
basis that in September the City may be able to find more favorable rates, however
he has great concern for the exposure the City faces between now and then. He
therefore stated he would be disinclined to take any action on postponing the
purchase of this insurance, particularly when the City's consultant, Warren,
McVeigh and Griffin have advised that this coverage is necessary and Mr. Hal
Parker, a professional insurance broker, has also recommended coverage be ob-
tained. Mayor Seymour stated that he would be fearful of the risk created by
taking the "let's wait and see" posture until September 1 and would rather pay
the prorated premium of $22,606 to provide the excess liability coverage of $20
million until September 1. In addition, this would allow the Risk Manager time
to September 1 to investigate other concepts.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned where the money for the prorated premium would
come from and was assured it could be covered by a surplus in the Risk Management
Budget.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Risk
Manager was authorized to purchase excess liability coverage of $10 million over
$10 million for the'period to September 1, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
180: FIRE AND EXTENDED COVERAGE INSURANCE FOR VEHICLES AT 518 SOUTH CLAUDINA
STREET: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
City Council authorized the purchase of fire and extended coverage insurance
for vehicles stored at 518 South Claudina Street in accordance with the letter
of offer from Allendale Mutual Insurance Company dated May 22, 1978, at an annual ~
premium cost of $1,614. MOTION CARRIED.
78-738
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
114/108: REVISED COUNCIL POLICY ON PROCESSING OF SOLICITATION PERMITS: In
response to a question from Councilman Kott, Mr. Hopkins explained that the
criteria in determining which solicitation permits may be approved administratively
by the City Manager are specified in the City ordinance covering solicitation
permits, plus some supplementary guidelines as set forth in the procedure. It
was intended in Council Policy No. 116, adopted by the City Council on May 30,
1978, that review and approval of these permit applications be delegated to the
City Manager upon approval by all members of the Solicitation Review Board. This
procedure is still subject however to appeal to the City Council if any permit
is denied by the City Manager.
148: REPORT ON ALTERNATIVES TO SCAG MEMBERSHIP: Councilman Kott took issue with
the report submitted by the City Manager's office indicating that, in his opinion,
it was not a report, it was more in the form of an editorial, because of the
lack of objectivity which he found i~ same. He reviewed some of his specific com-
plaints including (1) percentages given to reflect a decrease in the total budget
which were not "meaningful"; (2) that cost to the City of the time of one employee,
vehicle and gasoline to travel with the SCAG representative to and from Los Angeles
were not calculated and included; (3) that portions of the report appeared to him
to be apologies for SCAG; (4) that the report does not show what the successful
alternatives to SCAG are; that in his opinion the report draws conclusions without
giving the basis for same.
Councilman Kott concluded that he could not accept this as a report as it really
has not said anything.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that although Councilman Kott apparently read the
report closely, in his comments he skipped over the entire portion which did
show Anaheim's experiences with SCAG and what benefits have been received (pages
2 and 3). She recalled that the fact is Anaheim has benefited to the tune of many
millions of dollars, partly because she was there on the Executive Committee.
Councilman Roth stated that he has read the report and it has not changed his
philosophy or feelings; he remains unconvinced that it is in Anaheim's best
interest to be a member of SCAG. He noted that there are 4 cities which have
been out of this organization for a length of time and are still receiving
Federal monies. He explained that his fear is that this organization will lead
to regional government planning and metro-government, whereas he is an advocate
of local control.
The Mayor recognized Mr. Jim Townsend, 808 North Pine Street, who suggested that
he be authorized to prepare a citizen's report on SCAG. He spoke against SCAG
indicating he felt it to be an attempt at establishing regionalism and to take
over control of land use by Federal bureaucrats.
Mr. Townsend replied to Councilwoman Kaywood's question that he has never attended
a SCAG meeting.
Mr. David S. Collins was also recognized by the Mayor and he spoke in favor of the
SCAG organization, noting that he has attended SCAG general assembly meetings as
a representative on the Transportation and Utilities Committee. He voiced th~
opinion that the cities have to look at the transportation of people and goods
78-739
City Hall..~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
throughout the entire region of Southern California as it is a regional and
not a local problem and that most local solutions were regional problems had
to be solved through a regional organization such as SCAG.
Councilman Roth voiced the opinion that more emphasis and more responsibility,
for regional planning decisions should be placed with elected representatives
of the people through perhaps the League of California Cities, Orange County
Division League of Cities or National League of Cities, rather than having
decisions made by appointed bureaucrats as in SCAG.
MOTION: At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour moved that the
matter be continued for 30 days until such time as the consortium cities have
had an opportunity to meet again. During this period, Mr. Townsend may furnish
Council with whatever information he would like and the Intergovernmental Relations
Section of the City Manager's Office may amend their report. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood admonished Mr. Townsend, that if he wished to submit something
about SCAG, that it should contain facts as she is personally tired of hearing
people rip something apart when they have never even attended a meeting. She
recalled that in Orange County, other attempts at regional planning such as the
ICC and SAMCO have failed, and it is apparent that everyone does not agree on
everything, especially with the big issues.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (2:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:05 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1831: Application by
Lloyd E. Klein to permit commercial uses and a restaurant on proposed ML zoned
property located on the south side of La Palma Avenue, between White Star and
Armando Street with code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-101, declared that
the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact due to this project and, further, denied Conditional Use Permit
No. 1831.
The action of the Planning Commission was appealed by the agent for the applicant
and public hearing Scheduled June 6, 1978 (see minutes that date) and continued
to June 13, 1978.
The Mayor stated that the purpose of the continued public hearing was to give the
applicant an opportunity to provide a list of specifically proposed uses for Lots
2 and 7 of the subject development which the Council had already received attached
to the letter of June 9, 1978 from Income Property Services (IPS). He asked if
the applicant was available for any questions that the Council might have.
78-740
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Dick Broadway, Director of Projects, IPS, P.O. Box 6348, Orange, indicated
his presence.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to a letter received from the Chamber of Commerce
objecting to commercial uses in industrial areas and wanted to know if the issue
had been resolved.
Mr. Broadway answered that he had a copy of the letter, but had not discussed it
with the Chamber.
Councilman Roth interjected that Mr. Klein was in the audience and had indicated
that the Chamber was taking a neutral position on the matter. From the audience,
Mr. Klein stated that the Chamber was taking no position on the proposed project.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. David Collins, 952 S. Flore, stated he saw no reason for not mixing uses that
were compatible and served each other. To talk in terms of not allowing non-
manufacturing uses in manufacturing zones followed the cliche of protecting the
integrity of a zone. That cliche assumed first that the zone had integrity or
that it ought to have. He maintained such a cliche need not be followed.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed ihe public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact and
is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-380 for adoption, reversing the
findings of the City Planning Commission, subject to the following Interdepart-
mental recommendations, and further subject to the list submitted by the applicant
as to specific uses for Lots 2 and 7.
1. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification Nos. 68-69-37 and 70-71-47, now pending.
2. That the owner of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a
strip of land 32 feet in width from the centerline of the street along the
proposed new street through the property.
3. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along the proposed
new street through the property including preparation of improvements plans
and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street
grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied
with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and
specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer; that street lighting
facilities along the proposed new street through the property shall be installed as
required by the Director of Public Utilities, and in accordance with standard plans
and specifications on file in the Office of the Director of Public Utilities; and
that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be
posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements.
78-741
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
4. That the centerline radius of the proposed new street through the property
shall be a minimum of 150 feet.
5. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip
of land 32 feet in width from the certerline of the street along White Star Avenue
for street widening purposes.
6. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along White Star
Avenue, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all
improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving,
drainage facilities or other appurtenent work, shall be complied with as re-
quired by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifica-i
tions on file in the Office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities
along White Star Avenue shall be installed as required by the Director of Public
Utilities and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the
office of the Director of Public Utilities; and that a bond in an amount and form
satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the
installation of the above-mentioned requirements.
7. That the centerline of White Star Avenue shall curve on a minimum radius of
150 feet to intersect the centerline of the future new street through the property
at approximately 90 degrees.
8. That street lighting facilities along La Palma Avenue and Armando Street shall
be installed as required by the Director of Public Utilities and in accordance with
standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the Director of Public
Utilities; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of
Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the
above-mentioned requirements.
9.~ That sidewalks shall be installed along La Palma Avenue and Armando Street
as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and
specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
10. That the owner shall purchase the one foot lot "A" on the west side of
Armando Street and dedicate an additional four feet from existing property line
to the City of Anaheim for street and public utility purposes.
tl. That the owner shall dedicate right-of-way for La Mesa Avenue based on a
60-foot street width measured from the right-of-way line of the Riverside Freeway
and shall post a cash bond for the future street improvements including street
lights.
12. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works,
13. 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.
14. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
78- 7Z, 2
City Hal~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
15. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
16. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale,
lease or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject
property, shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
17. That the owner of subject property shall pay appropriate drainage assessment
fees to the City of Anaheim as determined by the City Engineer prior to issuance
of a building permit.
18. 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.
19. That the owner of subject property submit a letter requesting the termina-
tion of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1248 and 1567.
20. 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 16.
21. That the use of the subject property shall be limited to those specific
uses specified on the list entitled "La Palma Business Park Proposed Commerical
TEnants Lots 2 & 7" heretofore submitted by applicant and incorporated herein by
this reference.
22. That Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16 and 19, above-mentioned,
shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under
this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within
a period of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time
as the Planning Commission may grant.
23. That Condition Nos. 12, 14, 15 and 20, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated that he believed the subject development
to be a creative and imaginative one that would serve the City well. The specific
list of uses provided were consistent with the examples of other developments
presented to the Council at the prior hearing which examples were representative
of a high quality development that would be an asset to the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the resolution of approval also b~ tied to the
specific plans as submitted; Councilman Seymour accepted the addition.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution including the addition. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-380: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1831.
78-743
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-380 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1828: Application by Deldun Properties
to permit a repossessed automobile wholesaling facility on ML zoned property located
at 1231 South Sherman Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-97 declared that the
subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact
report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impact due to this project and, further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1828
for two years subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment
fee difference between industrial and commercial uses: $333.00 per 1000 square
feet of building or fraction thereof.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1.
3. That Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the
commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the
time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date
hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission
may grant.
4. That Condition No. 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final
building and zoning inspections.
5. That the proposed use is granted subject to review by the Planning Commission
at the end of a two-year period to determine whether the use has been detrimental
to the surrounding industrial neighborhood in terms of vehicular and pedestrian
traffic.
6. That the sale of repossessed automobiles shall be by sealed bids to licensed
automobile dealers only, said dealers having been notified by mail of the availa-
bility of the vehicles; and that there shall be no advertising or sale to the
general public.
7. That no auction shall be conducted to dispose of the vehicles.
Appeal of the Planning Commission's action relating to conditions of approval
was filed by the applicant and public hearing scheduled this date.
78-744
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 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. Brenner Reichstadt, Vice President and Manager, Wells Fargo Bank, asked that
Condition No. 1 imposed by the Planning Commission setting the traffic signal
assessment fee according to commercial property designation be reverted back to
industrial property for the signal tax benefits. They had been in operation in
Anaheim for three and one-half years and caused the City no problem during that
time. They were now merely moving their automobile wholesaling facility to
larger quarters and in so doing, wished to be considered the same as in the past.
The Mayor clarified, and Mr. Reichstadt confirmed, that although they accepted the
Planning Commission's recommendation, they were looking for relief from the traffic
signal assessment.
Councilman Roth asked the Traffic Engineer what the difference in fees between
commercial and industrial were, that being the point of contention.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated that the fee was $333 per 10~0 square
feet of building area for commercial.
Mayor Seymour pointed out, therefore, that the total differential was $630 ($30
per square foot for industrial) and approximately $7,000 as currently assessed.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Miss Santalahti did not recall any problem at
the business' prior location relative to traffic, and she was not even aware that
they had been previously located on Anaheim Boulevard.
Mr. Singer explained the reason they made the recommendation relative to the
signal assessment was due to experiences they had with the same type of opera-
tion on Tustin Avenue and Miraloma. He could show through photographs, which
he submitted to the Council, what formidable traffic problems could be generated
by wholesale automobile uses.
The Mayor.pointed out that, in essence, the request before the Council was the
first such request for waiver of the traffic signal assessment fee since Council
action a few weeks prior on the matter.
At the conclusion of a brief discussion between Council and staff, Councilman
Roth stated that the distinction in this case between that shown in the pictures
submitted lay in the fact that the business under discussion would not be open
to the public and the applicant stipulated before the Planning Commission that it
would be restricted to wholesale dealers only. Thus, the use would fit in more
closely with industrial uses than commercial.
78-745
City Hal!~' .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION: Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that if the waiver were
granted and the applicant conducted auctions thereafter, it would create a problem
for the City necessitating more staff time and money. As well, the signal assess-
ment was a recommendation from the Capital Improvement Committee relative to a
10-year program. If the source of revenue was cut and due to the passage of
Proposition 13, there would be no way to gain that revenue elsewhere. Councilwoman
Kaywood thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-381 for adoption, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 1828 as recommended by the City Planning Commission which included
the condition of assessment of the traffic signal fee at the commercial rate.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth expressed his opposition to the resolution
because he considered the differential between $7,000 and $630 too great and the
purpose of the Council's recent action in requesting an evaluation of the matter
was to correct such disparities.
Mayor Seymour agreed with Councilman Roth in that the City hoped to encourage
business to locate in Anaheim and had already taken action regarding a restudy
of the present policy. In the interim, the Council agreed to listen' to several
requests and thus each would have to be approached on an individual basis as
they were presented to the Council to provide that equity. Since there was some
traffic being generated by the subject use above an industrial use, he was looking
for an expression as to what would be fair and reasonable.
Councilman Roth suggested an assessment of $2,500; Mayor Seymour agreed.
Councilman Overholt agreed with the Mayor in his assessment of the matter; therefore,
he would vote against the resolution on the floor, but along the lines suggested
by Councilman Roth.
Upon questioning by the Mayor, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would accept the
intent of what Councilman Roth offered in her resolution, but she still had
problems concerning the matter as previously articulated.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution as offered with the exception that
the traffic signal assessment fee be modified to $2,500. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-380: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1828.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-381 duly passed and adopted.
78-74 6
C~ity Hall~ Anahei~.~. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
107: PUBLIC HEARING - UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS~
1976 EDITION: To consider adoption of the Uniform Code for the abatement of
Dangerous Buildings, 1976 Edition, as promulgated by the International Conference
of Building Officials, with amendments thereto, and adding a new Chapter 15.06 to
Title 15 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Councilman Kott referred to the 17 items contained in the data he received which
constituted a dangerous building and remarked that, in his opinion, it did not
say very much and he hoped if the items were accepted, those definitions would
not be abused.
Planning Director Ron Thompson explained that the Dangerous Building Code was
an addition to and cumulative with the Uniform Building Code, and it would have
to be properly followed. He agreed that although additional ordinances, rules
and/or regulations were probably not needed, the Council and Redevelopment Agency
had embarked on an ambitious program of redevelopment in the downtown area where
they would be dealing with buildings falling into the subject category. The
Dangerous Building Code would give the City an additional tool to deal with such
matters and place it on more sound legal footing.
Mayor Seymour stated he sensed that Councilman Kott's concern, which he'shared,
lay in the fact that the Code was written generally and subject to a r~presenta-
tive of the City enforcing it. This person's feeling may be contrary to the prop-
erty owners feelings or those expressed by a majority of the Council. In the
event it was enforced and the property owner felt the City was being unreasonable,
he wanted to know if it would be appropriate for the individual to appeal to the
City Council and would he have a right to do so.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that the Code did provide for an appeal and he
thereupon read the applicable sections.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the Uniform Code for the
Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1976 Edition; there being no response, he
closed the public hearing.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3864 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3864: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW CHAPTER 15.06
TO TITLE 15 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE UNIFORM
CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, 1976 EDITION, AS PROMULGATED BY
THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS, WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3864 duly passed and adopted.
78-747
City Ha.l.l.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
119: PRESENTATION - MISS ANAHEIM - MISS KERI TERRELL: Fran Mauck, Executive
Director of the Miss Anaheim Pageant, introduced Miss Keri Terrell, the new
Miss Anaheim for 1978, a 4.0 student at Magnolia High School.
On behalf of the Council and the citizens of Anaheim, Mayor Seymour presented.
Miss Terrell with a bouquet of roses, a replica of the symbolic Big "A"
Scoreboard appropriately inscribed, an attache case and 6 paper weights, along
with other suitable items as tokens of congratulations.
106/174: PUBLIC HEARING - FEDERAL GENERAL REVENUE SHARING: Proposed Federal
General Revenue Sharing budget for the Fiscal Year 1978-79.
City Manager Talley stated that relative to the Federal General Revenue Sharing
Funds, the Council had designated the entire use of the funds for FY 1978-79,
$2,274,000, for the new Anaheim Civic Center. As well, several items had been
reprogrammed from the previous year already approved (see memorandum dated
June 9, 1978 on file in the City Clerk's Office).
Mayor Seymour emphasized that the monies committed to the new city hall were
funds that could not be used to offset the effects of Proposition 13. The
Federal Government clearly spelled out that those funds shall not be used to
carry on current budget activities, but rather used for capital improvement
projects only.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the proposed use of
Federal General Revenue Sharing monies for FY 1978-79 in accordance with
Federal regulations; there being no response, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, the Federal
General Revenue Sharing budget for the Fiscal Year 1978-79 was approved. MOTION
CARRIED.
106: DISCUSSION - PROPOSED 1978-79 RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN (BUDGET): Councilman
Roth first expressed his concern that if discussions were started on the Budget, he,
as well as the rest of the Council, would be at a loss to know what amount the
City would receive from the State of California relative to the disbursement of
the approximate $5 billion State surplus under the provisions of Proposition 13.
Mayor Seymour agreed that the situation would be vague until a decision was
received from Sacramento as to how the citizenry of Anaheim would benefit from
the surplus. From the pronouncements received from Governor Brown the prior
week, it was clear to him that he intended to redistribute those surplus funds
based upon the Legislature's and the Governor's opinion as to ~eed. What he
suggested in a meeting of Orange County's State elected officials attended by
himself and Councilman Roth, instead of basing the disbursement on need, was the
following: a formula using the total of all property tax revenues collected last
year in California and from that, determine what percentage of those total
revenues each taxing agency had received. For example, if Anaheim collected
2 percent of all property taxes collected, it would be equitable for Anaheim
to receive that same 2 percent of the total surplus of funds to be paid back
to citizens. He was not certain that Sacramento would consider such a proposal.
78-748
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that he would prefer to proceed on the City's proposed
Resource Allocation Plan as well as with the amendment to the Budget prepared
by the City Manager as though no funds at all would be received back from the
State. Subsequently, if pass-back funds were received, a list of priorities
could be set as to what would be done with those funds. He did not favor
delaying discussions on the Budget any longer due to the press of time and was
adamant in wanting to proceed on the assumption that no funds would be received
and formulating a contingency plan.
Councilman Roth explained it was very difficult for him to talk about numbers
unless he knew what they were. If Proposition 13 was going to affect the City
by $4.9 million as stated in the City Manager's Budget message, his first
priority would be to ascertain where additional revenue could be realized.
Discussion followed between Councilwoman Kaywood and the Mayor relative to
Councilwoman Kaywood's contention that the time they would spend in discussing
the Budget might not be necessary due to the chaotic state caused relative to
the passage of Proposition 13 and considering that everything was subject to
change from one day to the next.
Councilman Kott was amenable to proceeding and considered it an opportunity to
eliminate approximately $5 million from the Budget with the possibility of also
receiving pass-back funds.
Councilman Overholt stated that three things were being discussed: (1) whether
or not the Mayor or another representative should go to Sacramento and lobby
regarding surplus funds as suggested by Councilwoman Kaywood; (2) specific
dollar amounts and (3) differences in philosophies not only from a Council
standpoint, but also from the public relative to the question of raising addi-
tional revenues. The sooner the Council could explore those differences or
similarities in philosophies, the sooner they could proceed since time was of
the essence.
Before proceeding, the City Clerk announced that a communication was received
from Mickey Campbell, Chairman of the Community Services Board dated June 12,
1978 relating to the Budget as it pertained to Proposition 13 which had been
copied for Council. Mrs. Campbell was in the Chamber audience.
City Manager Talley stated that not only the 1978-79 Resource Allocation Plan,
but 2 other documents were being presented which the Council should address;
the first being recommendations of staff on a proposed alternate plan entitled
"Proposition 13 - Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment Alternative Plan to
Proposed 1978-79 Resource Allocation Plan" prepared by the office of the City
Manager dated June 8, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office). In that plan,
staff recommended revenue adjustments amounting to approximately $2,950,000.
Of that amount, $1,400,000 represented an increase in existing revenue sources,
$1,550,000 were revenues currently existing or other funds that could be utilized
to offset the effect of Proposition 13. If the City was granted a proratio of
tax revenues, it would lose approximately $4.9 million, less any offsets received
78-749
qity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
from the State. In accordance with Council direction, adjustments were provided-
to mitigate the effects of Proposition 13 in the amount of $2,950,000 and in
addition, $5 million worth of expenditure reductions were proposed, but not
necessarily recommended by the City department heads, and ranked by the department
heads. Thus, if all proposals were utilized by the City Council, they would he
utilized in the order that the department head felt would least affect services
(ranked 1 through 58 listed in Part 2 of the Alternate Plan--"Recommended Reduc-
tions to the 1978-79 Resource Allocation Plan").
Also presented was a document from the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Director,
"Reduction of Summer Recreation Programs" to be acted upon at today's meeting.
In addition to the $4.9 million, there was another $373,200 received by the
City from the six school districts through a levy of a special 2-cent per hundred
dollars of assessed valuation of property tax. Mr. Talley believed that tax to
have been eliminated by the passage of Proposition 13. Therefore, the City
services funded by the $373,200 either would have to be removed or the Council
would have to find an alternate revenue source for those programs. Personnel for
the summer recreation program were due to report on Monday, June 19, 1978, and
unless given other direction, staff's recommendation was to notify those personnel
not to report and to cancel the program.
Mr. Talley also requested Council direction relative to the treatment of Depart-
ment of Labor CETA Funds. The City was currently operating under r~gulations
which he believed could be modified that would reduce at least in half the number
of layoffs the City would sustain by merely changing administrative procedures,
and it would be of assistance if Council would direct staff to expend every
effort to modify those regulations. He elaborated further giving a specific
example where such modification would preclude layoffs of CETA employees, not
because it would save money, but because of a technicality in the existing
regulation. As well, he also requested direction that would allow pursuit
with other cities for a relaxation of the regulation. The easiest way was to
have the Federal Government recognize that whatever budget the cities approved
as of July 1, 1978 represented a new base on which to make judgments in the
future.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested first to hear from Mr. James Ruth relative to
the summer recreation program.
Mr. James Ruth, Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department, first
stated that they had an excellent working relationship for many years with the
six school districts servicing Anaheim. However, the 2-cent tax levied by the
school district would be eliminated as the result of Proposition 13. Thus, if
the $373,200 which accounted for one-third of the City's funding for the recrea-
tion program was eliminated, they would have to close 27 playgrounds, 8 parks and
4 swimming pools and the 128 employees hired for the summer program would have to
be terminated. The summer program represented approximately $200,000 or 50 to
60 percent of the total contributions made by the School District and would have
a severe impact on the program. To compound the problem, it was his understanding
that no summer school program would be offered, generating increased attendance at
City parks and causing a significant problem. Since the revenue loss was not to
be replaced in their budget, there was no alternative but to curtail the program.
78-750
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Pat Clancy, 303 North Bush, stated that the surmner program was a vital
one and needed to remain in existence. She thereupon recommended that in order
for it to remain, that parents pay for the program, which she believed they
would be willing to do.
In answer to a member of the public, Mr. Fred Brown, Mr. Ruth confirmed that they
did not plan to shut down the Pearson Park pool because it was the most heavily
used. As well, the monies allocated towards the building of the new Pearson Park
pool, $300,000 plus, came from outside funding sources and no General Fund dollars
were involved. Thus, the building of the pool would not be affected and would
proceed.
The Mayor then solicited input from the public relative to the 1978-79 Resource
Allocation Plan (Budget).
Mrs. Mildred Campbell, Chairman of the Community Services Board, referred to her
memorandum dated June 12, 1978, already submitted and stated that all she had to
add was that without human services, Anaheim would be a City without a heart.
The services rendered by the Community Services Board must be continued, and she
urged the Council to give her recommendations careful and complete consideration.
Mr. Fred Brown, 1531 Minerva, first questioned the increase in the Budget to
$211 million from $140 million the previous year and wanted to know if there
was an increase in services for the additional $60 million.
Mr. Talley stated that the majority of change was in additional capital outlay
and the single greatest area was the $40 million budgeted for electrical genera-
tion, the second largest for power purchases and the third, the effect of two
years worth of salary negotiations. There was also a minor change in services
and there were no more than two additional employees.
Mr. Brown then posed the following questions or made further pertinent comments
relative to the alternate plan to the 1978-79 Resource Allocation Plan which
questions or comments were answered by Mr. Talley:
1. Part 1--A~ustments to Revenue--Page 1-C--increase in existing tax base,
increase of transient tax from 6 percent to 8 percent - additional revenue,
$1 million. He wanted to know what prompted the City to pursue that increase.
Mr. Talley explained that the major impetus was due to the fact that staff be-
lieved until Proposition 13 was fully litigated, it would be extremely difficult
to change any revenue amounts for the next year or more. Further, staff also
received good direction from the Council that no new substantial revenue sources
were to be recommended. Therefore, their recommendations were in two areas (1)
business licenses and (2) the room tax; the latter being collected by local
businesses, but paid for by out of town visitors, one-sixth going to the Visitors
and Convention Bureau. The real competition in the State, San Diego, Los Angeles
and San Francisco, each had a room tax of 7 or 8 percent. It was felt that an
increase would enhance the City's position by allocating another $200,000 to the
Visitor and Convention Bureau and generate $1 million which could legitimately
mitigate 20 percent of the effect of Proposition 13 without having any impact on
homeowners in Anaheim.
78-75 1
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
2. Page 3-F - Transfer from Workers' Compensation Self Insurance Fund -
additional revenue, $400,000. From his knowledge of the insurance industry,
Mr. Brown noted that recent comments from an insurance management team indi-
cated that no self-insured private industry could flexibly move around amounts
of money for workers' compensation, but at least a 5-year formula was involved
before being able to take any money out of such a fund in order to move it some-
place else.
Mr. Talley stated that the City had investigated the matter. Anaheim had not
been self-insured for 5 years and although it did not have a long historical
tracking record, it did have one on accident severity. He explained that
during the last audit there was a spirited discussion as to what the City's
reserves might be and as a result, $483,000 was transferred into that fund
with the appointment of a new Risk Manager. The Risk Manager believed he
could at least arrest the increase, severity and frequency and recommend on
a one-year basis that the reserves the City could contemplate having by the end
of 1978-79 could be $400,000.
3. Mr. Brown noted the reduction of approximately $300,000 relative to the
library and library services and questioned whether or not the City's libraries
would be opened in the coming year.
Mr. Talley explained that the reception he had been receiving by either the
Council or the electorate was that safety services should be reduced the last,
if at all, and thus ranked at the bottom of the priority list to be cut and
secondly, property related services should be funded from property sources.
Therefore, non-property related services would be placed at the beginning of
the list of items to be cut. Those departments not involved in property re-
lated services funded from the General Fund were most liable to be reduced
such being the Parks, Recreation and the Arts, Library and to some extent
Public Works. He took full responsibility relative to the rank given the library
items, but emphasized that the closing of libraries was not contemplated unless
one branch was closed totally. It would give the Library Director the option
of keeping all three branches open only 4 days a week instead of 6 or closing
one and leaving two open at the current diminished level of service. He commented
however that Mr. Brown was correct in concluding that there would be'a substan-
tial change in the quality and level of library service.
4. Part 2 - Recommended Reductions to the 1978/79 Resource Allocation Plan -
Item 23 - Cut of $51~000~ Library Administration and Publih Service Contracts
($12,000 in architectural contracts) Mr. Brown read an excerpt from the Para-
graph under Impact, .priority ranking number 23 and noted that the audio visual
program, including phono records, cassettes and film, would be.deleted, but those
items did not necessarily involve personnel. He did not believe that to be a
necessary item to cut. He also questioned why it was necessary to redesign the
library.
Mr. Talley pointed out that they were recommending that the $12,000 in architectural
contracts be eliminated, however when the main library was built 15 years prior,
it served a much smaller community and the total work load and service provided
by the main library required adjustments. He believed it to be a compliment to
the original architect that it could be redesigned at minimal cost and commented
further that an ongoing objective was to build as much flexibility into every
78-7~2
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
public building as possible, but every 15 or 20 years modifications were
necessary and not unusual. Relative to the $19,000 in materials under the
audio visual program, the recommendation was merely that the collection not
be enriched as in a normal budget year, rather than calling for a reduction
in that program.
In concluding, Mr. Brown recommended that in years to come it would be more
feasible to start on the budgetary process earlier than the month of June
since it was a very involved process. Although he conceded that this year's
budget was subject to a unique situation, considering Proposition 13, the short
period of time afforded for public input and Council consideration was not nearly
enough for a $211 million budget.
Mayor Seymour assured Mr. Brown that although public discussion was limited, he
had spent approximately 30 hours evaluating the budget thus far. He considered
Mr. Brown's suggestion to be an excellent one relative to being provided with
more time for the budgetary process before its adoption on June 30th of each
year. He outlined the present requirements in the City Charter regarding sub-
mittal of the budget and the time period allowed for receiving public testimony
and suggested that the subject be one of consideration for the Charter Review
Committee so that the Council could receive the budget by May 1 with public
hearings beginning in June.
Mr. Bill Lane, 517 South Hilda Court, stated he was concerned with savings
and one of the items the public wanted in the passage of Proposition 13 was
to have the "fat" cut from government spending. The heaviest costs were at
the top and he suggested that that aspect be considered. He was concerned
over any reduction of policemen and firemen and the possibility that in cutting
the Fire Department the cost of fire insurance would increase for homeowners
in the City. He did not want to end up paying the same tax again, but this
time to a private corporation.
Mr. Lane continued that relative to the Police, considering the negotiations
underway to bring the Rams to Anaheim, that action would bring an increase in
people and businesses in the City. He stated that many police officers were
concerned that they could not provide sufficient capability with such increases
with a simultaneous decrease in police. The City had approximately 10 million
visitors yearly, a population of 204,000, and less than 300 police officers.
In concluding, Mr. Lane remarked on the visitors who came to Anaheim from all
over the country and questioned whether the 6 percent bed tax was enough to
cover the =ost of the services provided those visitors by the City.
There being no further public testimony offered, the Mayor asked ~or input from
the Council relative to the proposed budget.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated from what she had seen and heard, there were very
few areas she would like to see cut. She did not want to see anybody lose
their job or see the level of services decrease to where the ultimate ramifica-
tions of such action would actually cost more with less service and having a
less desirable city in which to live. She maintained that it was necessary to
look for additional revenues and the room tax previously broached was the most
intelligent approach for the following reasons: if the City were to freeze
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-753
itself into remaining at 6 percent, it would ultimately be the lowest not only
for California, but also nationwide; other cities were collecting as much as
10 percent. It was a tax already being collected, thus it would not require
initiating anything new, but merely a matter of changing the amount to be
collected. She had heard no objection to it by those who would be doing the
collecting, the hotel/motel owners. The City presently had the best stadium
and convention center in the country, but there was a great deal of competition
close by as evidenced by the entry of Long Beach into the convention center
business, as well as the addition of two large theatres, and with the City being
in close proximity to Los Angeles, as well. Anaheim would need more money to
attract more and more conventions and trade shows. She maintained it was a
very necessary step for the City to take and she would approve of an increase
in the room tax even without the passage of Proposition 13.
Councilman Kott thereupon submitted a prepared statement containing his proposed
recommendations for project reductions for the 1978/79 Fiscal Year conforming
to the Proposition 13 mandate which formulated a $5 million reduction in the
budget. He thereupon read the statement listing 8 areas wherein cuts were recom-
mended amounting specifically to $5,326,575 (full text of statement dated June 13,
1978 addressed to the Mayor and fellow Council Members on file in the .City Clerk's
Office).
1. Bud..get - Page B-23: Eliminate "sponge action" of incoming reven~e in the
amount of $3,121,146 as an "Equipment Rental Charge." Charge back from Mechanical
Maintenance, $1,307,781. Difference of $1,813,365 can be eliminated.
2. Page B-24: Eliminate the "sponge action" of incoming revenue in the amount
of $2,136,090 as a "facility rental charge."
3. Page C-1 - Item 32: Re: City Administration - recommend cut in that department
of 25 percent or $54,250. Eliminate Intergovernmental Relations, $153,621.
Eliminate Public Information Office, $95,179. Eliminate Technology Application,
$52,793. Recommend cut of 25 percent or $34,500 in Program Development and Audit.
Total savings in City Administration - $390,343.
4. Pa~e C-1 - Item 35: Personnel Administration - cut 25 percent of'$72,623
for an amount of $18,150.
5. Page C-3 - Item 48: Library - cut overall budget approximately 5 percent
of $2,703,419 for an amount of $135,000.
6. Page C-3 - Item 54: Eliminate "Emergency Preparedness" - save $63,960.
7. Page C-5 - Item 70: Recreation and Arts: Eliminate "NaturE", save $52,106;
eliminate "Sports and Teens", save $288,988; eliminate co-recreation, save
$125,394; eliminate Arts and Special Activities, save $113,179.
8. Page C-6 - Item 76: Data Processing. Total budget equals $1,826,839. On
page B-23, total revenue equals $2,069,557. Service charges to various depart-
ments equals $771,793. Recommend overall cut in the entire Data Processing
area of 25 percent of $771,793 for an amount of $190,000.
78-754
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley first pointed out that 75 percent of the recommendations made,
approximately $3.9 million would result in laying off 100 employees and
completely closing down every City building. Item 1 and 2 of Councilman
Kott's recommendations representing cuts of approximately $1.8 million and
$2.1 million, respectively, were Intergovernmental Service Funds (IGS) re-
moved from the individual budgets and now put in one place. In essence, by
cutting those from the Budget, it would shut down 60 percent of the City's
vehicles and requiring laying off the entire Property Maintenance Division.
As an example, he explained that all City equipment was maintained out of
that fund (Equipment Rental Charge) all gasoline and new equipment. It was
projected at year's end that there would be an approximate $94,000 balance.
For everything over $94,000, they would either not purchase a piece of equip-
ment, lay someone off, not buy gasoline or the like.
The Mayor stated that as he understood it, Councilman Kott was suggesting there
was a difference of $1.8 million, when in reality it was only $94,000; Mr. Talley
stated that was correct.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 5 minutes. (5:10 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (5:15 p.m.)
Upon questioning by Mayor Seymour, Mr. Talley explained and elaborated in detail
upon the Equipment Rental Charges (Page C-141) and Intergovernmental Service
Fund for Mechanical Maintenance which fund was set up the prior year. Under the
projected budget for the coming year, staff was recommending a transfer in
equipment rental charges of $3.1 million. He also explained the make-up of
figures relative to sale of equipment, grant-manpower, and retained earnings
and answered additional questions posed by Mayor Seymour for clarification
purposes relative to those figures.
Mayor Seymour stated he was trying to ascertain whether or not Councilman Kott's
approach and recommendation was a reasonable one and was of the opinion that on
that particular item it was reasonable considering the two-thirds increase of
capital outlay in vehicles.
Mr. Talley noted that Councilman Kott recommended the elimination of the "sponge
action" in essence saying that the charge back was nearly 100 percent. He then
confirmed for Councilman Kott that the $3,124,146 (Page C-141) Equipment Rental
Charges included the cost that should be charged to the department for operating
the equipment. It was not a paper entry as suggested by Councilman Kott, but
the money actually existed and the department paid rental to Mr. Merriam, Mechan-
ical Maintenance Superintendent, who in turn spent it for gasoline, buying new
equipment, salaries, vacations, etc.
Councilman Kott contended that equipment rental charges did not mean salaries
or vacation pay as far as he was concerned.
Mr. Talley pointed out that each budget was set up to reflect both expenditures
and the source of the money to cover those expenditures. That money came from
equipment rental charges amongst other areas and it may be spent for labor, other
operating, capital outlay in the General Fund and capital outlay in vehicles as
listed at the top of Page C-141. Councilman Kott was citing a revenue amount
78-755
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
on Page B-23 which was a charge made to the departments which came in as a
revenue to that fund. The revenue of $2,136,090 paid for all salaries for
the people who maintained City buildings. He questioned the increase of al-
most 100 percent in Other Operating expenses under Mechanical Maintenance
from 1976-77 ($118,413) to the present proposed budget ($1,307,781).
Mr. Talley explained that two years prior, all costs were kept in department
accounts and not maintained with any type of uniformity. Thus, they now
tried to capture those in one area. The central garage, Mr. Merriam's opera-
tion, required $1,033,090 for salaries for approximately 40 employees; $1.3
million for supplies, gasoline, oil and other contracts to fund the City fleet,
and staff was recommending an expenditure of $1.4 million in capital outlay for
vehicles giving a total outlay of $3,746,000. $3.121 million was received from
departments as charges, $79,000 from the sale of equipment, $90,000 from Mr.
Hepburn (Manpower) with $456,000 coming out of retained earnings in order to
catch up on equipment purchases.
Councilman Kott concluded that there was no way to arrive at an accurate assess-
ment with the kind of budget presented. The information at best was difficult
to obtain and in order to understand what Mr. Talley was trying to achieve, he
should have provided a line item budget.
Mr. Talley stated he would provide the line item budget to Councilman Kott, as
well as the other Council Members.
Councilman Kott then referred to a document dated June 17, 1977 showing all
City vehicles in operation which were being driven home at night and requested
an update of the list, reasons the cars were leaving the work area and being
driven home and an approximation of the related cost.
Councilman Overholt stated that today it was important for the Council Members
to reveal their philosophies relative to the meaning of the Jarvis Initiative.
He did not support the initiative, but it meant to him that the taxpayers who
pay property taxes were revolting against the endless acceleration and escalation
of those property taxes to the point that they were becoming confiscatory. The
opportunity represented an indictment of Sacramento for not delivering relief
to the property taxpayer although they had ample opportunity to do so over a
long period of time. He was not opposed to looking at the revenue portions of
the City Manager's recommendations or anyone else's. His concern relative to
the possibility of increasing the room tax revolved around the fact that if
they were going to preserve the opportunity to ever act on the matter, they
would have to do so bY June 20, 1978. That was his statement of philosophy.
Councilman Overholt also stated that he was also very concerned about cuts in
the Recreation Program and hoped that that issue could be addressed before the
meeting's end.
Councilman Roth stated that although everyone wanted taxes reduced, no one wanted
to have services reduced or see anybody laid off. He had received many phone
calls from citizens and each had their own axe to grind. They did not want any
reductions in their "pet" items, but instead wanted others reduced. He had
suggested a plan for a reduction of $5 million in the budget as published in
the Anaheim Bulletin. However, before he could become involved in cutting
anything, he wanted to know how much revenue the City would have to work with.
78-7~.6
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
A recommendation he did make was to have the employee groups meet with manage-
ment to discuss the possibility of reopening negotiations and those employees
making over $20,000 a year take a 5 percent voluntary pay reduction. The ra-
tionale he used was based on the presumption that most City employees owned
their own homes and the effects of Proposition 13 would mean an average
monthly reduction in mortgage payments of, for example, $40. Thus, if an
employee had to give up $1,000 a year reduction in pay and his house payments
were $40 a month less, he would be receiving back approximately 50 percent of
the pay reduction and, as well, an additional $1.5 million would then be avail-
able to apply to budget cuts. He was certain that employee groups were interested
in the welfare of their fellow employees and this recommendation would give them
an opportunity to act and possibly save some jobs. Although he realized that
long-term fixed negotiations with employee groups were in effect, he was interested
in hearing from representatives of those groups who might be in the Chamber audience
regarding his suggestion.
Mayor Seymour reiterated his inability to make sense out of the proposed budget
document. As well, if the Council, public, and Chamber of Commerce researched
it, it was his opinion that they were going to reach the same conclusions--it
was an impossible document to understand. Although he did not have a specific
Council proposal, he had a plan that was a general approach in setting priorities
as to how to achieve or meet imposed reductions of $4.9 million loss in revenues
without immediately confronting the situation as to how much money wouid be re-
ceived from Sacramento. Moving on that assumption, he offered the following
5-step proposal for consideration: in order to set an attitudinal approach, he
believed it would be extremely important that the top management positions in
the City, department head levels, as well as the Council, move forward on a
positive note and declare what they were willing to do before asking others
the same.
1. A 10 percent pay cut in all Council salaries in order to set the tone in
leadership in subsequently asking the department heads and the City Manager to
also take a 10 percent pay cut.
2. A freeze on ali new positions.
3. Eliminate "fat" wherever possible. He was inclined to go along with the
suggestions Councilman Kott made relative to elimination of fat in administra-
tive areas, specifically he wanted to see some good cuts in the City Manager's
Department and in Budget, Finance, Data Processing and Personnel. He also
agreed with Councilman Kott that the City could do without the Intergovernmental
Relations Office and also the Public Information Office at least for a while.
4. A freeze on what he interpreted to be low priority capital improvements
such as new construction or a move towards construction, architectural fees
for the new Canyon Branch Library, the building of a Police Substation in
the Canyon and the like, and perhaps a reduction in the number of City vehicles.
78-757
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
5. Ask employee associations to discuss the recommended cuts with the City
Manager and himself if need be; the essence being that the City had done what
it could to tighten its belt, but it was now still faced with the question of
layoffs or doing something else. He suggested reopening negotiations on con-
tracts already signed. The bottom line being to ask the employee associations
to forego the 6 percent wage increase scheduled for September/October and to
put it off or a portion thereof until everything settled. He promised if the
employee associations were willing to work on that basis, whatever replacement
revenues the City received, the first priority would be to reinstate pay raises
already agreed to.
He thereupon directed the City Manager, for the Council, to develop numbers along
the lines of his five suggested cuts.
Mayor Seymour further stated that any increase in revenues was in diametric
opposition to his interpretation of what the voters meant when they voted
70 percent to 30 percent for Proposition 13. It was clear that all taxpayers
were saying they had enough taxes of any kind. He, for one, had his feet in
concrete relative to consideration of any increased revenues by raising fees.
It was not necessary to raise the percentage on fees to get increased--that is,
raising the bed tax from 6 percent to 7 or 8 percent because the fees increased
automatically through inflation.
Mayor Seymour also asked Council consideration relative to the Utilities Depart-
ment whose budget represented a huge portion of the total City budget. He had
personally spoken with a majority of the Public Utilities Board who admitted
privately that they did not understand the budget and they were placed in a
time capsule of pressure and in such a position where they felt a great responsi-
bility to "rubber stamp" the Utility budget and send it to the Council for approval.
He wanted them to have a second look at that budget and recommended sending it
back to them with a message that they scrutinize it, understand it and then tell
the Council if they would be able to stand the gaff of having the working capital
reduced by $500,000 as recommended by the City Manager and not come back to the
City Council or rate payers to make that amount up elsewhere.
Relative to the reduction of the summer recreation program, Mayor Seymour stated
he did not want to eliminate that. It was obvious that the school districts were
saying that they would not supply any money for the program. He considered
the suggestion from a citizen earlier in the meeting to be an excellent one--
perhaps offer one-half of the summer recreation program as proposed, but charge
fees for that program. He thereupon asked Mr. Ruth to reevaluate the situation
and come back with a. proposal offering a scaled down summer program for the
youth of the community that would pay for itself. He believed.that the community
would address itself to that approach in a positive fashion.
Discussion followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the
matter, at the conclusion of which, Mr. Ruth answered some of the concerns raised.
He explained that his department generated $331,000 a year in user fees and many
of their programs and activities were self-sustaining with another large percentage
of those programs at least partially self-sustaining. He had a portfolio of ideas
from his staff of the kinds of services that might be assessed and which could be
self-sustaining. Not knowing what the Council's philosophy and attitude was going
to be, it was the best thinking of staff to date. His department could crystalize
those suggestions and come back to Council with a modified program. The classes
78-758
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
did not present a problem because they were self-sustaining just as the swim
programs, but the problem arose in drop-in type activities at City parks
requiring maintenance and services and where it was not possible to charge.
A discussion of Council salaries then ensued wherein City Attorney Hopkins
stated that since the salaries were set by the City Charter, the only way
reduction could be accomplished would be through voluntary turn-back by the
Council person. Mayor Seymour offered to return 10 percent of the salary he
received; Councilman Kott offered the same. Councilman Overholt offered to
turn back 100 percent of his salary because it was not worth the $400 a month
($500 including meeting attendance) to him to have the City in trouble. In
his 9 years of elective office on the School Board, he took the same position.
Councilman Overholt stated that he was going to raise the issue of the room
tax again at the next meeting since it would be the last opportunity to do so.
Upon questioning, City Attorney Hopkins explained that the Jarvis-Gann Initiative
required a two-thirds vote for any special taxes passed after July 1, 1978, but
the question of what was special was still somewhat uncertain. However, statements
made by Jarvis-Gann people indicated it would be any tax other than ad valorem.
It was his opinion therefore that any change in a room tax should be enacted
before July 1, 1978. If the City did not move on the matter at the next meeting,
it would be subject to challenge thereafter.
In concluding, Mayor Seymour stated that along with the line item budget already
requested, that the entire Council be provided with work papers on Proposition 13
Alternate Plan. (Public hearing on the proposed 1978-79 budget will be held
June 20, 1978.)
148: REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION ON TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY
SENIOR CITIZENS: (Continued from the meetings of May 23, 30 and June 6, 1978)
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, request by
the Transportation Committee of the Orange County Senior Citizens Council for
City representation on their committee, was continued to July 11, 1978. MOTION
CARRIED.
148: REPRESENTATION TO ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NOS. 2 AND 3: On
motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, consideration of
representation to Orange County Sanitation District Nos. 2 and 3 was removed
from the agenda. MOTION CARRIED.
124: REJECTION OF BIDS - CONVENTION CENTER EAST PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS:
(Account No. 38-4855-985-20-0893) Councilman Kott offered Resolution No.
78R-382 for adoption, rejecting all bids on the subject improvement as recom-
mended in memorandum dated June 7, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-382: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON MAY 11, 1978, FOR
THE CONVENTION CENTER EAST PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS, ACCOUNT NO. 38-4855-985-
20-0893.
78-759
City Ha~l.~ ,Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-382 duly passed and adopted.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 1000 FEET OF 15KV SHIELDED XLP CABLE FOR KATEL?.A
SUBSTATION - BID NO. 3426: (Account No. 32-1701) On motion by Councilman Kott,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the low bid of Graybar Electric Company was accepted
and purchase authorized in the amount of $10,409.20, including tax, as recommended
by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated June 7, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 175: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Southern California.Edison
Company, Docket No. ER76-205, Initial Decision on Application for Rate Increase
(June 1, 1978).
b. 175: Before the PUC, Application No. 58045 of J. J. Warfield, dba Sunday
Buslines, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate
passenger stage service between the Southern California Edison Nuclear Generating
Station at San Onofre, California, on the one hand, and various points in Riverside
and Orange Counties, on the other hand.
c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of May 24, 1978.
d. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of May 16 and 23, 1978.
e. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of May 4, 1978.
f. 105: Park and Recreation Commission - Minutes of December 6, 1977,
January 25, February 8 and 22, March 22, and April 26, 1978.
g. 175: Monthly report for March 1978 - Utilities Field Division.
h. 107: Monthly report for May 1978 - Building Division.
2. 108: ENTERTAINMENT AND PUBLIC DANCE PERMITS: The following permits were
approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Application for an Entertainment Permit for entertainment on Wednesday through
Sunday, from 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. at the Cascades Restaurant, 2125 South Harbor.
Boulevard. (applicant, Louis George Shelby)
b. Application for a Public Dance Permit for Sociedad Progresista Mexicana, Inc.,
Lodge No. 33, for a dance to be held June 25, 1978, from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.,
at the Carpenter's Hall, 608 West Vermont Avenue. (applicant, Concha C. Flores)
78-760
~ity HDll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
c. Application for a Public Dance Permit for the Anaheim Atoms Girls Track
and Field Club to hold a dance at the Brookhurst Community Center, Brookhurst
Park, on June 23, 1978, from 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight. (applicant, Albert C.
Rodriguez)
MOTION CARRIED.
105: VACANCIES ON GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION: Councilman Roth noted that
the Commission's minutes of May 18, 1978 indicated that there were two vacancies
on the Commission and it was the Council's responsibility to fill those positions.
The Mayor stated he had just become aware of those vacancies and did have a couple
of nominees to be considered that were representative of the Anaheim Hills Golf
Course since that was where representation was missing.
Councilman Roth recommended that the matter be continued for two weeks at which
time the two vacancies could be filled.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, appointments to
fill the two vacancies presently exisiting on the Golf Course Advisory Commission
was continued for two weeks. MOTION CARRIED.
The City Clerk also confirmed that the vacancies had been previously advertised.
123: GOLF DRIVING RANGE AT THE H. G. "DAD" MILLER ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE -
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1: Authorization for Change Order No. 1, in the amount of
$20,000, Skyline Construction Company, Inc., Contractor.
Mr. Tom Liegler answered a question posed by Councilman Kott on the subject for
clarification purposes after which Councilman Roth moved to approve Change Order
No. 1, bringing the original contract price to $171,092, as recommended by the
City Engineer. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-383
through 78R-385, 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-383: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Lakeview Plaza
Investment Co., Ltd.; Douglas B. Browne; Conrad J. Letter, et ux.; W. G. Sommerville;
Michael E. Buchanan, et ux.; Isalene B. Pickle, et al.; Stephen F. Huetter; Edith
E. Flint; Donald J. Stolo, et ux.; Aubrey D. Warren, et ux.; William A. Erickson,
et ux.; Gordon Builders, Inc.; Albert N. Bahu, et ux.; Pibul Ratanavaraha, et ux.;
Anamco Inc.; Gene Noonan; Dayne E. Wells, et ux.; Gordon Builders, Inc.)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-384: 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: PEARSON PARK SEATING IMPROVEMENT,
PHASE II, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PROGRAM NO. 806-18, ACCOUNT NO. 16-4309-806-18-0000.
(Herk Edwards, Inc.)
78-761
City. Hall~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-385: 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: FAIRMONT BOULEVARD LANDSCAPING
IMPROVEMENT, N/O SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, A.H.F.P. NO. 837,
PROJECT NO. 13-4309-741-16-0000. (Kaz Hanano Landscape, Inc.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-383 through 78R-385, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held May 22, 1978, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-59: Submitted by Maurice Pinto, for °a change in
zone from RS-7200 to CL on property located at 410 West Vermont Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-105, granted
Reclassification No. 77-78-59 and granted negative declaration status.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3012: Submitted by Jerome A. Stewart, et al., to construct an
industrial building on proposed ML zoned property located at 1180 North Tustin
Avenue with certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-106, granted
Variance No. 3012 and granted negative declaration status.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1755 (READV.): Submitted by Kenneth D. and Louie
B. Clausen, to permit massage for women and men in an existing figure salon on
CL zoned property located at 2060 West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-108, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1755 (Readv.) and ratified the Planning Director's
categorical exemption determination.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1833: Submitted by the Conservative Baptist
Association of Southern California to permit an expansion of church offices
on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 2528 West La Palma Avenue with cer-
tain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-109, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1833 and granted negative declaration status.
78-7~32
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1835: Submitted by J. P. Edmondson Properties,
Ltd., to permit an automobile rental agency in an existing service station on
RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 1402 South Harbor Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-110, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1835 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1836: Submitted by William H. Remland, et al.,
to permit a drive-through donut shop on CL zoned property located at 528 South
Beach Boulevard with code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-111, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1836 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1837: Submitted by Dale E. and Sarah Ann Fowler,
to permit an automobile repair and restoration service facility on ML zoned
property located at 1061 Shepard Street, Unit H.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-112, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1837 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1838: Submitted by Ball Road 863, Ltd., to
permit a tent camp facility in an existing recreational vehicle park on CL
zoned property at 333 and 475 West Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-113, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1838 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
9. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 147: Request for initiation of land use
evaluation for General Plan study.
II.
III.
IV.
Southwest corner of Ninth Street and Katella Avenue, encompassing
3.23 acres.
Area south of Miraloma Way between the Riverside and Orange Freeways
interchange, encompassing approximately 12 acres.
Area encompassing approximately 40 acres south of the Riverside Freeway,
north of the Santa Ana River, west of Tustin Avenue, and east of the
flood control channel in the vicinity of Glassell Street.
Northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway, encompas-
sing approximately 4 acres.
The City Planning Commission set July 17, 1978 for a public hearing.
10. VARIANCE NO. 2696 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request submitted by Cara Von
Surplus Building Materials, for an extension of time to Variance No. 2696
pertaining to the retail sale and outdoor storage of building materials on
ML zoned property located at 517-519 East Katella Avenue.
The City Planning Commission granted a one year extension of time to Variance
No. 2696 to expire May 28, 1979.
78-763
City H. all, .A~..aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning
Commission became final.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1574 - REVISED PLANS: Submitted by Matreyek Homes,
Inc., requesting approval of revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 1574,
to exclude a laundry room in the construction of a 263-unit mobile home park '
with various code waivers on property located south of the Riverside Freeway,
north of Medical Center Drive, and west of Euclid Street.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, revised plans
for Conditional Use Permit No. 1574 were approved, as recommended by the Planning
Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 10106: Developer, Fredericks Development of Santa
Ana; tract located south of Nohl Ranch Road, east of Imperial Highway containing
2 RM-4000 proposed zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed sub-
division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent
with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No.
10106, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated June 7, 1978.
MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3869: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3869 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3869: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (67-68-68(3), RM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3869 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3870 THROUGH 3872: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 3870
through 3872, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3870: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-55(7), CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 3871: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-60, CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 3872: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-39, RM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3970 through 3872, both inclusive, duly passed
and adopted.
78-764
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3873 THROUGH 3876: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 3873
through 3876, both inclusive, for first reading.
149: ORDINANCE NO. 3873: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190, SUBSECTION .690 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE'
RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (No parking on portions of Broadway)
170: ORDINANCE NO. 3974: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING
SECTION 17.08.039.040 OR TITLE 17, CHAPTER 17.08 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE AND ADDING A NEW SECTION IN ITS PLACE AND STEAD RELATING TO LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENTS. (City Engineer designated advisory agency for purposes of
approving lot line adjustments)
ORDINANCE NO. 3875: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(26), RS-HS-22,000)
ORDINANCE NO. 3876: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-9(9), CL)
Relative to Ordinance No. 3874, Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to be certain that
notices would go to every property owner involved in the lot line adjustments
and asked if that would be automatic notification.
City Engineer Maddox explained that those were generally lot line adjustments
caused by the final grading, and thus property owners were not usually involved.
If there were, however, they would be notified.
101: COUNCIL LIAISON MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LOS ANGELES RAMS:
Councilman Overholt stated that he and the Mayor had a liaison meeting with
representatives of the Rams, and Cabot, Cabot and Forbes on Thursday, June 8,
1978.which was fully reported in the newspapers.
Later in the meeting, Mayor Seymour elaborated further and stated the subject
meeting was a very positive one, even though both sides of the table negotiated
firmly. A great deal of candidness was also displayed. The meeting was concluded
on a basis that he believed was well within the parameters as best understood by
the Council as well as the Anaheim Stadium, Inc. Board of Directors and the citizens
of Anaheim. They looked forward to a written proposal from the Rams in the very
near future.
Mayor Seymour stated that he was personally impressed by the Rams' concern for
the quality of treatment of their fans. They wanted to be sure that their fans
were not only comfortable in Anaheim, but also that they were going to be comfort-
able in the Stadium if completed as proposed. He hoped that it would not be too
long before the City heard from the Rams with a specific written proposal.
148: MOTION - SUPPORT RESOLUTION OF COSTA MESA URGING CALTRANS TO START EIR
STUDY FOR THE ROUTE 55 CORRIDOR THROUGH COSTA MESA: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, support of the subject resolution was
approved as recommended by the Mayor of Costa Mesa at the June 8, 1978 League
of California Cities meeting. MOTION CARRIED.
78-765
_qity Mall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
153: FIRING OF RUTH JACOBSON: Councilman Kott requested that the City Manager'
provide a report relative to the circumstances surrounding the firing of Ruth
Jacobson as Recreation Specialist. He had received a number of inquiries re-
garding the matter. Councilman Overholt had also received calls concerning
the incident, and he also wished to receive a report.
Councilman Kott left the Council Chamber. (6:25 P.M.)
105: RESIGNATION OF AL PERAZA FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: On motion
by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the resignation of
Mr. A1 Peraza from the Community Services Board was accepted with regret.
Councilman Kott was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott returned to the Council Chamber. (6:27 P.M.)
148: "KNOW YOUR CITY" BOOKLET: Mayor Seymour explained that 10,000 copies
of the subject booklet were being reprinted at 25-cents a copy or $2,500, and
it was his understanding that the printing was being held off by the Assistant
City Manager. The Mayor stressed that he wanted to see the booklets printed
because it was important for the citizens of Anaheim and especially young
school children to know more about their city. He considered it impeCative to
move forward with the printing and unless there was a majority dissent of the
Council, he directed the City Manager to instruct the Assistant City Manager
to have the reprinting of the booklets completed. No objection was raised by
any Council Member.
103: CANYON ANNEXATIONS: The Mayor explained that Phil Schwartze, Assistant
Director for Planning, approached him relative to tomorrow's meeting with LAFCO
and the City's response to the proposed "new" City to be formed by the Vista
del Rio Water Company. Mr. Schwartze wanted to know what comments that
he or any other City representative might make in that regard. The Mayor's
response to Mr. Schwartze was that since he was not an elected official of
the City, he should not offer a response, but could do so to the degree that
he (Schwartze) was now amending the cost benefit model about which he spoke
earlier in the meeting in order to provide some numbers to which the Council
could react. He (Seymour) was looking for a response from the Council individ-
ually or collectively as to what to relay to the media when they called.
Councilman Roth indicated if they were so inclined to try to form a new City,
that was fine with him and they should feel free to do so; Mayor Seymour was
of the same mind. There was no other response.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:32 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (6:34 P.M.)
118: CITY OF ANAHEIM VERSUS SELLERS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded
by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney was authorized to accept and offer of
settlement of $4,986 in the case of the City of Anaheim versus Sellers (Case No.
A4543 in the Municipal Court of North Orange County). MOTION CARRIED.
78-766
City.. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 1.3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: Councilman Roth moved to recess to 7:30 p.m. to consider Order to Show
Cause on Conditional Use Permit No. 1785. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:35 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (7:30 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1785:
Joseph Conrad, Estate of Lee Combs, Lowen V. and Louise E. Casey, Notice of
Order to Show Cause why Conditional Use Permit No. 1785 permitting an automobile
storage and impound yard on CH and PC-C zoned property located at 801 South
Anaheim Boulevard, should not be terminated on the grounds said permit is being
exercised contrary to the terms and conditions of such approval.
Mayor Seymour first outlined the rules under which the public hearing would be
conducted.
Miss Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained that at the time the
City Council approved Conditional Use Permit No. 1785 on January 17, 1978, several
conditions were to be satisfied within a period of 90 days or by April 17, 1978.
Mr. Conrad had satisfied the conditions except one pertaining to a required
8-foot block wall to be constructed along the south property line abutting the
residents to the south. Originally involved was a wall on the west side of the
property which had been built. Other conditions of approval were also stipulated
relative to mechanical work on the property, hours of operation--namely, no mechan-
ical work after 6:00 p.m. daily or Saturdays and Sundays, no power tools utilized,
no vehicles being utilized by Mr. Conrad to be parked or stored outside the fenced
in area which would be the 8-foot block wall including along the frontage of
Anaheim Boulevard. Since then, complaints have been received relative to the hours
of business, noise and impounded vehicles being parked within public sight. The
Zoning Enforcement Officer had also gone to the premises on several instances.
Before continuing, Councilman Overholt stated that since he was not a member of
the Council at the time the CUP was granted, he would abstain from voting unless
required for a decision. However, he had reviewed the minutes of the Council
meetings in which the matter was considered as well as the findings and thus
would be prepared to vote.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that he had discussed the matter with Councilman
Overholt and his suggested action would be a proper procedure.
The Mayor asked if Mr. Conrad or his agent was present and desirous of being
heard.
Mr. Joseph Conrad, 801 South Anaheim Boulevard, explained that he had completed
the block wall fence and the completion was signed off by the City for the
250-foot portion that lined the property. The block wall fence alongside the
neighbors' property had not been raised the required 3 blocks and an engineering
study was being done to determine the feasibility of either tearing the present
wall down or raising it to the required height. There was some objections from
some of the neighbors to raising the wall and, in the interim, he was under the
impression that the 90-day time limit started from the second hearing (February 14,
1978). In fact, the main portion was completed 90 days prior to the second
78-767
qity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
hearing. At that point, he had already invested $13,000 in the fence and to
consider investing another $13,000 without having reasonable knowledge that his
CUP would not be revoked, he could not proceed to raise the wall until after
today's hearing. Otherwise, he would have had it completed by May 16, 1978.
Mr. Conrad continued that although some minor infractions had taken place, not
one citation had been issued to him on the property. If such citations had
been issued, then he would not be Justified in requesting that his CUP not
be revoked.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of not having Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1785 revoked.
Mr. Rick Nelson, 311 East Clifton (3 to 4 blocks away from subject property),
stated he was opposed to having Mr. Conrad's CUP revoked for a number of reasons,
the first being that their area needed an establishment such as Mr. Conrad's for
mechanical work and towing--someone in the immediate area they could trust and
go to to have their automobiles taken care of. His acquaintance with Mr. Conrad
had been through getting his car fixed. He (Conrad) had always been fair with
him and when his car was finished being repaired, all parts that were faulty were
shown to him. Thus, he could trust Mr. Conrad and that was something to say for
the mechanical field.
Mr. Nelson then stated that he understood one of the problems was noise, a subject
with which he had first-hand experience since he lived approximately 200 yards
from a firm involving a non-stop, 24-hour a day docking function. He did not
want to see the small businessman penalized for making noise when it was minor
in comparison to a big corporation. As well, he had been to Mr. Conrad's estab-
lishment many times and the place was always relatively clean although it was
questionable as to how clean one was able to maintain an impound yard. Mr. Conrad
had already invested $13,000 in a block wall and he was willing to spend another
$13,000 if the Council retained his license. Mr. Nelson urged Council to do so.
Mayor Seymour questioned Mr. Nelson as to his indicating that his relationship
with Mr. Conrad was one that developed when he (Conrad) or his employees performed
repair work on his car on the subject property. Mr. Nelson stated yes and that
Mr. Conrad had mechanics working in the back and there were a couple of mechanics
that he knew working there who had repaired his car.
Mayor Seymour asked for clarification by staff regarding the situation since he
understood Mr. Conrad's establishment to be an impound storage yard and not a
place for repair.
Miss Santalahti stated that was correct.
Mr. Nelson confirmed for the Mayor that he did get his car repaired on the subject
premises one time.
Mr. Conrad interjected that there was a misconception involved; the property
was zoned for mechanical repairs, but restricted after 6:00 p.m. when no air
hammers or air equipment was to be used and also on weekends.
78-768
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated he did not believe the CUP was granted to permit automobile
repair, but merely for impound and storage. A number of times in the hearings
it was brought out that Mr. Conrad was not going to dismantle cars and he recalled
testimony that no repairs would be done on the property.
Miss Santalahti stated the resolution approved by the City Council permitted an
automobile storage and impound yard on the property.
Mr. Conrad took issue with Mayor Seymour's assessment because it was incorrect.
Part of the property was used for storage and impound, but the rest of the
property was a repair facility and a body shop not owned by him.
Miss Santalahti referred to Item No. 6 of the conditions of approval of the
CUP stating that no mechanical work other than minor repairs shall be permitted
and no such work shall be conducted after 6:00 p.m. daily or on Saturday or
Sunday; Mr. Conrad contended that that meant he could operate normally in the
daytime.
Miss Santalahti further explained for Councilman Roth that the automobile repair
permitted in the zone was in connection with a car sales agency that being an
accessory function. When the agency relocated, there was to be no mechanical
work on the property. Without car sales, there could be no repairs.
Mr. Conrad stressed that such a restriction was totally unknown to him until
the present moment.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that all parties were given copies of the resolution
which clearly stipulated the restriction.
Mr. Conrad stated that he came to the hearing under completely different grounds
and had no idea discussion was going to be about his using his facility as one
for repair and asked to have the Council convene the hearing to another time in
order to have counsel present.
The Mayor pointed out that Mr. Nelson, speaking on his (Conrad's) behalf, stated
that fair repair work at reasonable rates was provided and reiterated that he
was under the impression that no mechanical work was to be performed by Mr. Conrad's
operation.
The Council was not amenable to closing the hearing and reconvening at a later
date.
In answer to Councilman Overholt, Mr. Conrad stated he raised the. question because
of the new information that was revealed to him and retaining counsel was not a
grounds for the request.
Ms. Debbie Merril, Knott Avenue, Secretary to Mr. Conrad, stated that he had been
trying to make changes, the problem being that he was too nice in giving a second
chance to the young men working for him. They needed a job and a chance to prove
themselves, but subsequently if problems arose, Mr. Conrad would fire them, but
eventually they returned and tried harder and were doing well. Mr. Conrad was
very honest and he was trying to clear up everything. He had changed a number of
things and new rules had been instituted.
City ~al~, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-769
Mr. Loren Casey, part owner of the property, stated that he had attended each one
of the hearings on the subject matter and was very surprised that now mechanical
repair work was a question. The property was set up as a mechanical garage, sales
and service and he never interpreted it at any one of the meetings that mechanical
repair was excluded. He reiterated there had never been any question in his mind
that the facility was not always, from the beginning, approved for mechanical
work whether or not sales took place.
Mr. Casey stated if the complete meetings were recorded, there were statements
made by members of the Council at many different times indicating the only matter
for which the meeting was being held was to discuss the CUP relative to an impound
and storage yard and that the towing service and mechanical service could continue.
Mayor Seymour stated the question in his mind relative to the matter was the
certified letter (with return receipt requested) sent from the City Attorney's
Office to Mr. Casey, Item No. 2, which stated that there was to be no mechanical
work other than minor repairs and with no work being conducted after 6:00 p.m.
and Saturdays and Sundays. That was one of the 3 primary reasons for holding
the hearing and the restriction was clearly spelled out in the resolution and
the letter received by Mr. Casey.
Mr. Gary Bolton, owner of the body shop, explained that one of the main reasons
for opposition by the neighborhood was the noise factor created from the various
enterprises on the property, his or Mr. Conrad's. He had spoken with Mrs. Bird
relative to the noise who told him that City people had been contacted to run
noise studies, but they could never "catch" them. Mr. Bolton continued that he
offered to let Mr. Conrad use some of their other facilities in order to alleviate
the problem and, as well, he offered to meet with Mr. and Mrs. Bird and others.
He was surprised to learn they found out they had to catch them because all they
had to do was ask. In fact, he offered to have people come out and they would
purposely run their equipment any way the neighborhood saw fit. Consequently,
representatives from the Orange County Human Services Agency conducted tests to
ascertain if the noise was of an excessive nature, damaging to health and well
being. Within the last 5 minutes, he received the results of the test. Although
he had not read it, the bottom line was that apparently noise levels were within
legal limits.
In concluding, Mr. Bolton stated that his company wanted to be good neighbors
and even though the noise emission was within legal limits, if it was still a
problem to the neighbors, he would be happy to meet with the City Engineers and
whatever steps necessary to alleviate the noises coming from his operation, they
would do whatever the City deemed necessary to help eliminate the problem for
the neighbors and hopefully that action would eliminate some of the problems
to the point where Mr. Conrad could run his operation.
The following people then spoke in favor of revoking Conditional Use Permit
No. 1785.
Mr. John Kaesler, 107 MacArthur Manor, stated his major complaint was (1) that
the fence had not been built and (2) the noise at night. He lived at the end
of MacArthur Manor and the front of Mr. Conrad's lot was in his backyard. On
May 15, 1978, at approximately 10:05 p.m., he heard a loud noise out back. He
78-770
City .Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
opened his back door and caught one of Mr. Conrad's night employees and a number
of other men unloading a pickup truck off of one of Mr. Conrad's trucks. To this
day, that truck was still there. Yesterday, he counted 23 cars remaining there
24 hours a day. At 5:30 p.m. today, they started to push 3 of the cars on the
front lot into the back, but there were still about 7 cars in the front lot that
had been there since January. On Memorial Day, 4 vehicles were unloaded in the'
front lot and one was on a tow truck. It was his understanding that no vehicles
could be stored or unloaded on the front lot. Even if unloaded on the front and
pushed to the back, he believed it to be wrong because he was being disturbed.
Mrs. Rosaria Kaesler, owner of 107 MacArthur Manor, stated that at approximately
10:30 p.m. the prior evening, a gun was fired in the subject lot and someone
present in the Chamber audience saw the gun on Mr. Conrad's premises. The
incident kept everyone awake and it had not been the first time. When local
law enforcement was called, the neighbors were told it was a civil matter and
thus no satisfaction was given.
She urged the Council to revoke CUP 1785. There had been too much harassment
both to her son and immediate family, as well as everybody concerned on the street,
and the situation had caused a great deal of unhappiness in the neighborhood.
Mr. Nick Farmer, 106 West MacArthur Manor, believed the decision the Council
had to make to be a simple one. He (Conrad) was given certain conditions to
meet and if violated, the CUP was to be revoked. He planned to remain living
in his present home and if the hearing did not decide the matter, he would be
back again. He, too, urged the Council to revoke the CUP. He also confirmed
for Mayor Seymour that he heard gun shots the night before and concurred with
the approximate time stated and his wife did so as well.
Mr. Keith Bird, 121MacArthur Manor, read excerpts from the minute~ of the
Council meeting held January 17, 1978, which were pertinent to the decision
to be made relative to revocation of CUP 1785 (see minutes that date). He
read excerpts from pages 78-68 and 78-69 wherein statements were made by Mr.
Conrad stipulating the things that he would and would not do on his property
and, as well, read the conditions of approval that had to be met and/or main-
tained (page 78-70) otherwise the CUP would be subject to revocation. Of
the conditions read by Mr. Bird, only one, to his knowledge, had been Complied
with and that was no alley ingress or egress. The other conditions continued
to be violated such as the 8-foot block wall being only partially complete on
April 26, 1978. After 99 days, only approximately one-third of the wall was
complete.
Mr. Bird continued that heavy power tool noise was constant from the premises
on weekends and during late hours. Last Friday, the Zoning Division had to
be called to remove or to inspect parked vehicles in front of the establishment--
crash, damaged or dismantled vehicles stored in public view. He asked that the
City Council revoke CUP 1785 on the grounds stated as being in violation of
that permit. Mr. Bird also confirmed that he heard about 4 or 5 rapid shots
about 10:00 p.m. the night before.
78-771
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
After a brief discussion with staff, it was revealed that the Zoning Enforcement
Officer did not go to the establishment the Friday before, but Miss Santalahti
went to the site and saw that there were, in fact, vehicles stored in the front
lot that did not appear to be legitimate.
Mrs. Elaine Kaesler, 107 MacArthur Manor, first stated she had also heard the~
gun shots, approximately 5 at first and then 2 thereafter, but she did not see
the gun. She continued that at the last meeting, Mr. Conrad stated he could
not control all the people on the lot when he was asked about two men who
approached her husband at their home to borrow tools. She emphasized that was
the problem, there were many people involved, friends, employees, other people
and she did not believe the situation could be controlled in a residential area.
It was wild and on weekends it was even more disturbing. The vehicles were
stored starting on Friday afternoons because nothing could be done by the City
on weekends and the Police always indicated civil action was involved and they
could do nothing. The residents were tired of living with the ongoing situation
and it was very difficult to get anything accomplished. Something had to be
done. She also did not understand what the situation was relative to the wall.
Mr. Conrad was talking about adding 3 feet to it. If it fell over, someone was
going to get hurt.
Mrs. Billie Bird, 121 MacArthur Manor, stated that relative to the noise test,
they never received a copy of the results and she thereupon requested a copy
of the report. She explained that when the tests were taken, Mr. Bolton was
not a part of Mr. Conrad's establishment and the tests were not taken to her
satisifaction--they were not long enough and did not involve multiple noises.
Furthermore, there were many other problems involved.
As far as the City not citing Mr. Conrad, the situation had been explained to
them that he would be warned and that was the way the City normally handled
such matters. They were not interested in changing procedures and therefore
they did not become upset over the matter. Mrs. Bird maintained that if Mr.
Conrad acquired the proper permits when he moved to the property, the subsequent
problems would have been avoided and the neighborhood would not have been sub-
jected to all that occurred nor would Mr. Conrad have had to go through the
expenses incurred. It was totally his responsibility.
In concluding, Mrs. Bird stated the situation was an emotional one even though
Mr. Conrad suggested that it not become so. It was unavoidable where their
families were involved and many in the neighborhood were now afraid to the
point where some were considering selling their homes. Their's was for
sale presently not only because they needed more room, but also because they
could not live with the situation any longer.
Mr. Theodore De Velbis, 100 MacArthur Manor, (resident since 1949) stated that
he was the person who saw the gun although it would probably not stand up in
court. He then proceeded to explain what occurred. It was approximately
10:20 p.m., June 12, 1978, when he heard one shot and then four additional
spaced shots. Both he and his son went outside and looked over into the Conrad
property and saw four men. Mr. De Velbis walked out to the sidewalk and he
saw one of the four raise his arm in the air with what appeared to be a gun and
he could distinctly hear what sounded like clicks. He lowered the object and
78-772
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June. 13, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
raised it again only this time he could not hear anything because of the
passing traffic. He waited a while and took for granted that perhaps blanks
were fired and then he went back into his house. He could not, however, swear
as to whether or not the object was a gun.
Mary Oliver, 111 West MacArthur Manor, explained that she requested that the
representative making the noise study monitor noise from her backyard, but it
was done during coffee breaks. If she had to call him back when the noise was
the greatest, it would be all over by the time he arrived. As well, when she
arrived home from work late at night, the men who drove Mr. Conrad's trucks
raced the engines and slammed on their brakes which annoyed her.
Mrs. Sharon Farmer, 106 MacArthur Manor, stated that she also heard the shots,
there was a lot of activity in their neighborhood and tow trucks had been driving
down their street, two times yesterday and once today. There was no need for
their street to be used instead of South Street and Anaheim Boulevard. During
the trash strike she noticed the trash bins on Mr. Conrad's property filled with
beer cans, and she was concerned to think that drinking was going on while vehicles
and tools were being operated. As well, debris had been left in the alley from
the old fence. The neighbors had been carrying the issue for six months and if
the Council did not make the right decision tonight, the problems would continue.
Nonetheless, she and her husband and her neighbors would keep coming back to
fight the matter because otherwise it would not change.
Mrs. Albert Poudevigne, 110 MacArthur Manor, stated that a great deal of dirt
had been shoveled into the alley and water seeping from Mr. Conrad's property
into the dirt caused mud. It appeared as though when the wall was constructed,
no mortar was placed between 3 or 4 blocks causing the water seepage, and it
was her understanding that Mr. Conrad was to put in a drain to preclude such
an occurrence.
In his closing statement, Mr. Conrad was of the opinion that much of the testimony
given had been given previously. He maintained there was a misconception between
his operation and the body shop and the neighbors had been trying to close the
body shop where the majority of the noise emanated. They were trying to get to
the body shop through him. If his establishment was removed, then the body shop
would be closed. The testimony would bear out that 99 percent of the problem
was noise and the block wall fence would border the side of the property used
by the body shop. He also pointed out the following: (1) he knew nothing of the
gun shots or the situation surrounding the matter; (2) drivers had been told
not to use MacArthur Manor; (3) driving tow trucks was not a job which attracted
older men. His operation needed young men and every once in a while, mistakes
were made. (4) His business serviced people in need and somebody had to do the
job. (5) He had refinanced his home to build the fence and an additional $13,000
would place an undue burden upon him. Although he was willing to complete it,
the neighbors really did not want the fence, but only wanted his operation out
of that location.
Miss Santalahti stated for clarification purposes that relative to the body shop,
mechanical function, the zoning did allow a garaging function. She referred to
and read excerpts from the minutes of the January 17, 1978 hearing, page 78-61,
which addressed a discussion held on the subject wherein there was a comment
78-773
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
relative to the body shop and boat sales as being permissible. She read from
paragraph 3 and noted that when the ultimate resolution was approved, it did
require that the auto work Mr. Conrad conducted was to be modified to mechanical
repair items. Commentary made by the residents indicated no apparent problems
prior to Mr. Conrad moving in with the impound and storage use. They were not
concerned with the previous body shop. The essence of Miss Santalahti's expla-
nation was that she was wrong in her previous statement relative to mechanical
repair and wanted to clarify the matter.
The Mayor however referred to page 78-69 (January 17, 1978 minutes) indicating
that approval of the use was subject to several conditions, one clearly stating
that no mechanical work other than minor repairs take place after 6:00 p.m. daily
including weekends.
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Mayor Seymour stated it was his strong feeling that in view of the testimony
received over a long period of time, he did not see any way possible that Mr.
Conrad was going to be able to continue to do business at his present location
to where it would be compatible with the neighborhood. There was also little
doubt in his mind that Mr. Conrad had violated at least three items relative to
Conditional Use Permit No. 1785:
1. CONDITION ~ER 5: That an eight-foot block wall shall be installed and
maintained and the existing six-foot wall be extended to eight feet surrounding
the property which walls shall be completed within 90 days from the date of
this Resolution.
2. CONDITION NUMBER 6: That no mechanical work other than minor repairs shall
be permitted and no such work shall be conducted after 6:00 p.m. daily or on
Saturday or Sunday.
3. CONDITION NUMBER 8: That no vehicles shall be parked or stored outside the
fenced area, including Anaheim Boulevard.
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-386 for adoption, revoking
Conditional Use Permit No. 1785, with the following findings:
1. That an eight-foot block wall was not installed and maintained and the
existing six foot wall was not extended to eight feet surrounding the property
within 90 days from January 17, 1978, the date of Resolution No. 78R-45.
2. That mechanical work other than minor repair was permitted'and minor
repairs were conducted after 6:00 p.m. daily and on Saturday and Sunday.
3. Vehicles are parked and/or stored outside the fenced area, including
Anaheim Boulevard.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated that he empathized with Mr. Conrad
relative to the investment of his hard-earned money for some improvements on
the property. On the other hand, the Council had to either uphold the conditions
imposed at the time the permit was approved or look the other way and say the
violations did not exist.
78-774
C~ty Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott shared the Mayor's sentiments and stated he would vote for the
revocation of the CUP. He wanted clarified that in so doing it may or may not
include mechanical repairs in the body shop. With that one exception, he believed
that mechanical repairs from the way he interpreted Condition No. 6 was that such
repairs would be allowed during the day. If analyzed, it would have to be con-~
strued that mechanical repairs could be made before 6:00 p.m., otherwise the
stipulation that repairs could not be made after 6:00 p.m. would not be necessary.
Councilman Kott conceded that it was perhaps a mistake to have approved the permit
initially, and the Mayor was correct relative to the incompatibility in the type of
work being performed in the operation in a residential area. He also hoped that
relative to the body shop, that operation would not continue to be a problem as
well.
Councilman Roth agreed with Mr. Conrad in the fact that much of the testimony
was repetitious and he was also not swayed by the interpretation that mechanical
repairs could not be performed. His main consideration was the fact that, when
he asked the City Attorney at the April 25, 1978 meeting when the expiration
of the 90 days occurred for constructing the fence, he was told the 90-day
period had ended. He (Roth) made a commitment to the community that Mr. Conrad
would not be granted one day's extension for completion of the block wall. It
was Mr. Conrad's responsibility to see that the wall was complete andit was not
done. He would thus support the resolution on the floor.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that the situation had been a disaster to a very
nice neighborhood resulting from a totally incompatible use.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-386: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REVOKING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1785 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NOS. 78R-45
AND 78R-109 NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-386 duly passed and adopted.
174: CETA PROGRAM AND PAY-BACK FUNDS FROM STATE RESERVE: Councilman Roth stated
there was a matter he believed to be extremely important and thereupon moved that
the City Manager be directed to spend as much time and energy necessary with the
City's representatives in Washington D. C. relative to the CETA program problem.
As well, the City Manager should extend all his efforts in Sacramento on the
pay-back of the $5 billion from State reserves. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion.
78-775
City Hal~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13, .~978~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated he understood the motion to have two
parts. He had no problem in directing the City Manager to extend his efforts in
Sacramento. In his viewpoint, however, there was a problem relative to asking the
City Manager to go back to Washington to lobby for a change in the CETA Program.
In his opinion, such action would open the door to laying off full-time people
without having to lay off CETA people, consequently, causing problems with employee
associations. A bigger problem in the process would be that of making permanent
employees out of CETA employees. He was strongly opposed to changing the conditions
in the City's relationship with both CETA and permanent employees. He was very
concerned that temporary employees would become permanent, a thought he had expressed
many times in the past.
Councilman Roth stated he was referring to the recent consortium letter received
concerning the Department of Labor pointing out that there was a possibility of
changing the funds around so as to be able to retain City employees, not CETA
employees.
The Mayor explained if the City was successful in that lobbying effort, it
would be in a position not to have to lay off all CETA employees before getting
to permanent positions, all performing the same job.
Mr. Talley stated that was not quite correct and under the present regulations,
no matter what the job, if one regular City employee was laid off, all CETA
employees in that department had to be laid off. As an example, if the Fire
Department had 20 CETA employees cutting brush in the canyons, and one City
funded laborer assisting firemen in hydrant repair, if it became necessary to
lay the hydrant laborer off, the 20 CETA laborers would also have to be laid
off because they were all laborers.
Mayor Seymour asked that if that laborer could be taken out of the Fire Depart-
ment and put on the golf course in a full-time position, then the problem would
not exist; Mr. Talley answered affirmatively.
Mayor Seymour emphasized that was the point--the City would then start using
Federal Funds to fund full-time positions because it would be financially
beneficial for the City to do so.
Councilman Roth stated he was not interested in having that occur since he did
not favor Federal funding.
At the request of the Mayor, Councilman Roth withdrew that portion of his motion
revolving around the CETA problem.
Mr. Talley stated the other aspect of the situation was that as of October 1, 1978,
the Department of Labor also wanted the cities in 27 states, including California,
to pick up the retirement costs for CETA. The Mayor expressed his opposition to
such a move.
Mr. Talley then suggested first that everything possible be done to prevent
having to pick up the retirement cost. The maintenance of it relative to the
CETA Program could be worked on thereafter.
78-776
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 13~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion excluding at this time having the
City Manager lobby for a change in the CETA program. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 9:15 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK