1978/06/27.C_ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-829
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
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
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt
CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
RISK MANAGER: Jack Love
PURCHASING AGENT: Dick Jefferis
WATER SUPERINTENDENT: Ray Auerbach
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER STAFF ASSISTANT: Jim Dooley
CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSISTANT: Bob Herr
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Rabbi Herschel Brooks of Temple Beth Emet gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
144: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY - 208 PLANNING: A brief presentation was
given by Marilyn Jacobs of Toups Corporation on behalf of the County Environmental
Management Agency in which she described effects on Anaheim and the County of
Orange of 208 Planning, a Federal Matching Grant Program funded by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. She explained that the Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG) and EMA are jointly preparing a plan to be implemented by
cities and local agencies. During the presentation, she outlined the pure water
goals established by the Federal Government for 1983 and gave examples of the
types of solutions for water pollution being considered in the joint 208 Planning
effort.
At the conclusion of the presentation, Ms. Jacobs answered Council questions re-
lating to the possibility of an extension of time past 1983 for attainment of
pure water goals and relating generally to water safety and purity.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution extending official congratula-
tions to Father Geb, Coach McCann and the outstanding players of the Servite Friars
Baseball Team was unanimously issued by the Anaheim City Council and presented by
the Mayor together with an "A" frame on the occasion of their Winning the top
division championship in CIF Baseball.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was unanimously
issued by the Anaheim City Council and presented by the Mayor to Mr. Saburo Horiba
in recognition of the Twin County Optimist Club humanitarian efforts in sponsoring
a special children's Arts and Crafts Exhibition held at the Anaheim Plaza and the
Sumitomo Bank. The Mayor also presented an "A" frame to Mr. Horiba.
78-830
~jty Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour,
minutes of the regular meetings held April 18, 25 and May 9, 1978 and adjourned
regular meeting held May 10, 1978, were approved subject to typographical cor-
rections. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,595,804.10, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
174: AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH EMIGDIO C. VASQUEZ - YOUTH MURALS PROJECT:
In accordance with the recommendation submitted by Norm Priest, Executive Director,
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-401 for adoption, authorizing
amendment to the agreement with Emigdio C. Vasquez, extending the term of said
agreement to June 30, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-401: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH EMIGDIO C.
VASQUEZ IN CONNECTION WITH THE YOUTH MURALS PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-401 duly passed and adopted.
123: EL CAMINO BANK AGREEMENT FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS - NEIGHBORHOOD PRESER-
VATION PROGRAM: Following assurance given by Mr. Priest that this was the least
costly method of disbursing funds, taking into consideration the fact that the
bank is located in the same building and that the Agency already has accounts
established, and that checking account charges are not substantially different
in other banks; Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 78R-402 for adoption
establishing a disbursement account for the California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA)
as part of the Community Development Block Grant Program to accomplish payments to
contractors following inspection of rehabilitation work performed under'the pro-
gram. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-402: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE EL CAMINO BANK RE-
GARDING THE DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION
PROGRAM AS PART OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
78-83 1
.C.ity Hall...~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 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-402 duly passed and adopted.
128: FINANCIAL STATEMENT REVIEW - ii-MONTH PERIOD ENDING MAY 31~ 1978:
Finan-
cial Statement prepared by the Finance Department for the ll-month period ending
May 31, 1978, was submitted for Council review.
Mayor Seymour questioned that the statement by object code schedule shows a 61
percent variance in debt service.
Mr. Ferrone advised that this may be due to a budgeting problem in that certain
items are being budgeted at one-twelfth of object cost each month however pay-
ments do not always fall equally on that schedule. He further advised that he
would investigate, with report back to the Council as to the specific reason for
the variance. With respect to the $9,400,000 shown under Public Works as an expen-
diture against a prorata budget of $4,100,000, reflecting an overbudget variance
of $5 million as pointed out by Mayor Seymour, Mr. Ferrone suggested that this
might reflect City Hall construction, but he would also investigate this matter
and report back with an explanation of same.
MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the
Financial Statement Review for the period ending May 31, 1978, was ordered re-
ceived and filed. MOTION CARRIED.
169: EXTENSION OF TIME - LINCOLN AVENUE MEDIAN CONSTRUCTION - LEONITE CONCRETE~
INC.: Report from the City Engineer recommending that the City Council allow an
extension of time to Leonite Concrete, Inc., of 52 working day and assess liqui-
dated damages in the amount of $3,400 in conjunction with the construction of the
Lincoln Avenue Median construction (Account No. 13-4309-724-16-0000) was submitted.
In reponse to Councilman Kott, the City Engineer explained tht the 52 day extension
was recommended on the basis of the number of days that it rained during this con-
struction, as well as the days following rain in which there was excess water on the
site and concrete could not be poured. No additional working days were granted
due to equipment problems.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the
City Council approved the assessment of liquidated damages against Leonite Concrete,
Inc., in the amount of $3,400, thereby allowing a time extension of 52 Working days
as recommended by the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
180: SELF-INSURANCE VEHICLE LIABILITY: Report from the Risk Manager was presented
recommending that the City Council authorize self-insurance of the City's vehicle
liability up to self-insured retention of $500,000.
78-8~2
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 19 78~ 1:30 P.M.
In response to Councilman Kott, City Attorney Hopkins advised that there is an
indirect relationship between this action and the agreement with Carl Warren &
Company for claims supervision and administrative services in conjunction with
the City's self-insurance liability program in that, if the City were to become
self-insured on vehicle liability, the Carl Warren & Company costs would be
slightly increased to cover the added work incurred for handling automobile
claims. They estimate this amount at $250 per month plus the actual claim
costs. He added that Mr. Love feels the self-insured retention to $500,000
for automobile liability is the appropriate way to proceed and he would concur
in his evaluation.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
City Council authorized self-insurance of the City's vehicle liability up to
a self-insured retention of $500,000 as recommended by the Risk Manager in his
memorandum dated June 19, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
180: CANCELLATION OF MONEY AND SECURITIES (CRIME) COVERAGE: Report was presented
in which the Risk Manager concurred with the recommendation made earlier by Warren,
McVeigh and Griffin to cancel the crime coverage insurance inasmuch as the limited
exposures do not exceed the City's risk retention capacity. He explained that this
insurance was carried to cover robbery or burglary on City premises perpetrated by
an individual or individuals other than City employees and had a limit of $10,000.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Risk
Manager was authorized to cancel the insurance covering money and securities (crime)
exposure with Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (Policy No. 59BY607BCA). MOTION
CARRIED.
123: FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT - CANAL-RANDOLPH ANANEIM~ INC.: Council-
man Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-403 for adoption authorizing the first amend-
ment to a lease agreement with Canal-Randolph Anaheim, Inc., for office space to
be' used by the Police Department in the Bank of America Building, 300 South Harbor
Boulevard, extending the term to June 30, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-403: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND CANAL-RANDOLPH ANAHEIM, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-403 duly passed and adopted.
106: TRANSFER OF FUNDS AND ADJUSTMENTS - FISCAL YEAR 1977-78: On motion by
Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council authorized
a transfer of funds and adjustments to FY 1977-78 budget appropriations to
correct imbalances in certain salary accounts as set forth in the memorandum
dated June 20, 1978 from the Program, Development and Audit Office. MOTION CARRIED.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-833
106: ADJUSTMENTS TO REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL YEAR 1977-78 RESOURCE
ALLOCATION PLAN: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the City Council authorized appropriation adjustments for both revenues
and expenditures to the FY 1977-78 Resource Allocation Plan in accordance with
Redevelopment Agency Cooperation Agreements for Project Alpha capital improvement
projects as set forth in memorandum dated June 21, 1978, from the Program, Develop-
ment and Audit Office. MOTION CARRIED.
106: APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO FISCAL YEAR 1977-78 RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN
- CIVIC CENTER CONSTRUCTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Council-
man Seymour, the City Council authorized appropriation adjustments as set forth
in the memorandum dated June 21, 1978, from the Program, Development and Audit
Office, for both revenues and expenditures to the FY 1977-78 Resource Allocation
Plan for the Civic Center Construction Project. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AGREEMENT - CARL WARREN & COMPANY - CLAIMS SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES: City Attorney Hopkins advised that bids were solicited from other firms
and after evaluation of these various bids it is felt the best program would be that
provided by Carl Warren & Company. He noted that the additional self-insured reten-
tion for automobile liability will increase the cost and therefore this agreement
may need amendment to reflect these at a later date.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-404 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-404: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CARL WARREN & CO. AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (exPiring
June 30, 1979)
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-404 duly passed and adopted.
123: AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF ORANGE - ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES: In accordance
with the recommendation submitted by the City Attorney's Office, Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-405 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-405: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
(extending term to June 30, 1979)
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-405 duly passed and adopted.
78-834
9~_Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
158: SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT ORANGEWOOD & RAMPART STREETS: City Attorney
Hopkins explained that the proposed resolutions are necessary to change the name
on Title of Ownership in subject sale from Sunset Construction, Inc., to Stadium
Properties, a limited partnership.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 78R-406 and 78R-407 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-406: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-358.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-407: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING A CORPORATION GRANT DEED FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN SURPLUS CITY PROPERTY
(GENERALLY LOCATED AT ORANGEWOOD AVENUE AND RAMPART STREET) TO STADIUM PROPERTIES,
A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
GRANT DEED.
Roi1 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-406 and 78R-407 duly passed and adopted.
105: REAPPOINTMENT OF TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30~ 1978 - VARIOUS CITY BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS: In accordance with Council direction, the City Clerk submitted the
names of all commissioners whose terms will expire June 30, 1978 and on motion by
Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council authorized
that the following each be reappointed to one additional term, ending in each case
June 30, 1982:
Mrs. Jacqueline Dvorman and Mr. Joseph Ersek to the Housing Commission.
Mr. Wynn Anderson and Mr. Jim Townsend to the Public Utilities Board.
Mr. Hal Tolar and Mr. Lewis Herbst to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hal Tolar and Mrs. Sally White to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Mrs. Joann Stanton and Mrs. Jean McClain to the Library Board.
Mr. Ben Bay and Mrs. Jane Oseid to the Community Redevelopment Commission.
MOTION CARRIED.
In addition, the City Council determined they would fill the remainder of the
vacancies on the various City boards and commissions at their regular meeting
of July 25, 1978. Councilman Roth requested that a list be compiled by'the
City Clerk of those people who have indicated an interest in s~rving and their
respective interests.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
180: RISK MANAGER REPORT ON PUBLIC OFFICIALS LIABILITY INSURANCE (ERRORS AND
78-835
OMISSIONS): In accordance with Council direction given at the June 13, 1978
meeting, a report covering the subject of Public Officials' Liability Insurance
was submitted by the Risk Manager. (on file in the City Clerk's Office)
Brief discussion was held regarding the inclusion of the Public Officials' Liability
Insurance coverage in the City's excess liability policy on renewal September 1,
1978. Mayor Seymour stated that he would prefer the Risk Manager to be investigating
the cost of providing both $3 million and $10 million policies.
In response to Councilman Overholt's questions, Mr. Love explained that the policy
will cover claims filed within the year of issue only, which is the only form of
primary coverage available for this type of insurance.
At the conclusion of discussion, on motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Council-
man Kott, the report on Public Officials' Liability Insurance submitted by the
Risk Manager was ordered received and filed. MOTION CARRIED.
167: ESTABLISHMENT OF FEES AND ASSESSMENTS - TRAFFIC SIGNALS: (Continued from
June 6, 1978) On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, con-
sideration of the report and recommendations relative to the establishment of
traffic signal assessment fees in connection with Council Policy No. 214 was
further continued to the meeting of July 18, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH E. RAY NOXSEL - OFFICE SPACE AT 1020 SOUTH
ANAHEIM BOULEVARD: In accordance with the recommendations submitted by the Personnel
Director, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-408 for adoption authorizing
an extension to the term of lease for office space to house Manpower 'Services Divi-
sion expiring May 31, 1979, for a monthly cost of $1,000. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-408: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AND E. RAY NOXSEL DBA NOXSEL'S INVESTMENT COMPANY FOR THE LEASE OF OFFICE
SPACE FOR THE MANPOWER SERVICES DIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING THE M_AYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO LEASE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-408 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Kott voiced his objection to the City entering a lease for this office
space when there is space available in the E1 Camino Bank Building, owned by the
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, at a rate of $920 per month.
144: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - ORANGE COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL: In response
to the communication from Herb Eggett, Chair, Transportation Committee of the Senior
Citizens Council, for City representation on said committee, on motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council designated Joe Garza and Bill
Vasquez of the Community Services Division to attend on behalf of the City. MOTION
CARRIED.
78-836
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
163: RESOLUTION - CITY OF COSTA MESA REGARDING SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS: Council-
man Kott offered for adoption a resolution similar to that which was forwarded
to various Orange County cities by the Costa Mesa City Council, urging adoption
of State legislation which would place the responsibility for school crossing
guards with school districts.
Prior to voting on the resolution, Councilman 0verholt cautioned that this
legislation, if approved, would shift the financial burden from the cities to
the school districts and before taking such a position he felt it would be well
to determine whether or not better services could be provided by the school
districts or whether it is more appropriate for the City to continue to provide
these services. He stated that he personally felt since the crossing guard is
an extension of a traffic safety control function, that the City, by virtue of
its Police Department and Traffic Engineering Division, is in a better position
to provide this type of safety service than the school districts.
The foregoing resolution failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kott and Roth
Overholt, Kaywood and Seymour
None
Councilman Overholt suggested that this matter be referred to the School Traffic
Safety Committee for their recommendation. Councilwoman Kaywood advised that it
would be important to have this recommendation prior to August 10, 1978, on'which
date the League of California Cities will vote on the issue.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the School Traffic Safety Committee review
the proposal to shift the responsibility for school crossing guards from cities to
school districts and report to the City Council with a recommendation prior to
August 1, 1978. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Kott voted
"NO". MOTION CARRIED.
167: AWARD OF CONTRACT - RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS: In accor-
dance with the recommendation submitted by the City Engineer, Councilman Seymour
offered Resolution No. 78R-409 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-409: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: INSTALLATION OF REFLECTIVE AND NON-REFLECTIVE RAISED PAVE-
MENT MARKERS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS, 17-4309-776-16-000. (Traffic Appliance Cor-
poration, $191,964.10)
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-409 duly passed and adopted.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-83~7
167: AWARD OF CONTRACT - TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING - ELM STREET AND
HARBOR BOULEVARD: In accordance with recommendations submitted by the City
Engineer, Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-410 for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-410: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
ELM STREET AND HARBOR BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4309-263-
16-0075. (Steiny and Company, Inc., $14,656)
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-410 duly passed and adopted.
164: LA PALMA AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT: (Account No. 10-4309-727-16-0000)
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council
continued decision on award of contract for the La Palma Avenue Storm Drain'
Improvement from Lakeview Avenue to 630 feet east of Kellogg Drive to the meeting
of July 11, 1978, as recommended by the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - TEN ELECTRIC GOLF CARS: Recommendation of the
Purchasing Agent that the City Council accept the bid of Golf Cars of California,
Inc., for 10 Club Cars and authorize purchase in the amount of $20,087, including
tak, was submitted.
In response to Councilman Kott's question as to why only one bid was received,
Mr. Jefferis explained th'at they were unable to locate anyone other than Golf
Cars of California, Inc., which manufactures a golf car with fiberglass body
and aluminum frame. On further investigation, it was determined that the Golf
Course management feels these specifications are mandatory because the light-
weight car adds considerable time to the battery life.
Neal Beeson of Golf Course Operations added that although this type of car is
initially more expensive ($2,000 per car versus $1,600 approximately), they
project that they will be able to recoup at least that amount in the first year
from the additional rental possible due to the longer battery life.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City
Council accepted the bid of Golf Cars of California, Inc., and authorized pur-
chase of 10 Club Cars in the amount of $20,087, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
78-838
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
EXTENSION OF TIME - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-28 AND VARIANCE NO. 2882: Request
submitted by Dominguez Enterprises, Inc., for an extension of time to Reclassifica-
tion No. 76-77-28 and Variance No. 2882, to construct a 27-unit apartment complex
on proposed RM-1200 zoned property located on the north side of Ball Road, west
of Knott Avenue, was submitted together with reports from the Zoning and Engineering
Divisions.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City
Council granted extension of time to Reclassification No.. 76-77-28 and Variance
No. 2882, retroactive to March 15, 1978 and to expire March 15, 1979, subject to
the posting of a surety bond for public improvements within 30 days. MOTION
CARRIED.
167: REQUEST FOR REFUND - TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEE - LEO FREEDMAN ENTERPRISES:
Request of Leo Freedman for refund of traffic signal assessment against property
located at Freedman Way, east side of Harbor Boulevard, north of Katella Avenue
(Anaheim Hyatt House Hotel) in the amount of $11,979 which was paid under protest,
was submitted for City Council consideration together with a report and recommenda-
tion from the City Engineer.
Mr. Freedman, 468 South Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, addressed the Council and
summarized the additional income the City will be receiving as a result of transient
occupancy taxes, property taxes and sales taxes as a result of this addition to the
hotel. He also contended that his project would not actually require the installa-
tion of a new signal. He therefore requested that the Council reconsider the assess-
ment and reduce it to a more equitable amount, suggesting perhaps that they assess
it on the basis of 30-cents per square foot in line with the traffic~signal assessment
fees charged industrial properties. He estimated this would reduce the fee to approxi-
mately $720.
Mayor Seymour explained that the City staff is currently working on a revised traffic
s£gnal assessment fee formula and in the interim, the City Council has agreed it
would consider requests for refund or reduction on a case-by-case basis. Therefore,
there is no constant standard for establishment of these fees, but the Council would
attempt to arrive at an equitable solution. He personally stated that in view of
the fact that this hotel expansion would bring in considerable additional amounts
of revenue in transient occupancy tax and property tax and also since there are
currently some 34,000 vehicle trips per day on Harbor Boulevard, whereas this
addition is anticipated to add 600 additional vehicle trips, an increase of 1.7
percent, that he did not see any equity in the fee assessment of $11,979.
Councilman Roth agreed and suggested that the assessment be based more in line with
what would be charged single-family residential for the same square footage, which
would amount to about $2,160.
Councilwoman Kaywood was of the opinion that it would be wise to hold this matter
over until the traffic signal assessment fee formula is revised and reestablished,
as whatever reductions the Council granted at this time will establish a precedent.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, apologized for the time it is taking for staff .to
develop a formula, noting that it is a far more complex situation than they originally
envisioned. He suggested that if Council does grant reductions, that these be in
the area of a minimum of 50 percent so as not to reduce too drastically the funds in
the Traffic Signal Account.
Ci.ty Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
78-839
It was noted again by Councilman Overholt that the City Council did agree to
consider each request on an ad hoc basis until the policy is revised.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the
City Council determined that $2,500 would be an appropriate traffic signal fee
for the addition to the Anaheim Hyatt House Hotel and authorized refund to Mr.'
Freedman of the amount paid in excess of that fee. Councilwoman Kaywood and
Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott stated that he had voted "no" because no one has yet arrived at
an equitable formula and although he agreed there should be some adjustments, he
did not think this was on an equitable.basis.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 15 minutes. (3:05 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:20 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-46~ VARIANCE NO. 2994~ TENTATIVE TRACT
NO. 10254 (REV. 1) - REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES: Submitted by Carl L.
and Mildred E. Rau and Doris Gibson, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000(SC) and
County A-1 to RS-7200(SC) together with certain code waivers and request for removal
of three specimen trees to construct a 16-lot subdivision on property located on
the northwest side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, northeast of Mohler Drive.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-90 and PC78-91
granted the negative declaration from the requirement to prepare an EIR and
granted said reclassification and variance.
Appeal of City Planning Commission action was filed by Eve Miller together with
a request from area homeowners that public hearing on Reclassification No. 77-78-46
and Variance No. 2994 be held in the evening.
MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the
City Council continued the public hearing on Reclassification No. 77-78-46 and
Variance No. 2994, Tentative Tract No. 10254 (Rev. 1) and request for removal
of specimen trees to July 11, 1978 at 7:30 p.m. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1826: Application by James P. and
Phyllis J. Crawford, to expand an existing recreational vehicle park by establish-
ing a tenting facility on C-R zoned property located at 1343 South West Street,
was submitted.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-100, determined
that the subject property be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an
EIR, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
and further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1826, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That street lighting facilities along Walnut Street shall be installed prior
to the final building and zoning inspections unless otherwise approved by the
Director of Public Utilities and in accordance with standard specifications
on file in the Office of the Director of Public Utilities; and/or that a bond,
certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, 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.
78-840
City Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
3. That sidewalks shall be installed along Walnut Street as required
by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications
on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
4. 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.
5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
and 2; provided, however, that an eight (8) foot high concrete block wall shall
be constructed along the westerly side of the property and shall be aligned with
the existing block wall and landscaped earthen berm on the adjacent property to
the south (Tennisland) and that said wall shall be extended around the northwest
corner of the property and gradually reduced in height to 6 feet and continued
at that height for the remainder of the north property line.
6. That a solid access gate for emergencies only shall be provided at the
northwest corner of the property.
7. That safety lighting fixtures to be provided in the~open lawn area shal.1
be no higher than the 8-foot high wall along Walnut Street.
8. That a precise landscaping plan consisting of plant species, size, and spacing,
and including the safety lighting, shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Commission, and that said landscaping plan shall include trees to be
planted on 10 foot centers in the setback area outside the 8-foot high wall along
Walnut Street.
9. That the hours of use for the open lawn area shall be limited to 6:00 o'clock
a.m. to 10:00 o'clock p.m.
10. That the dog run shall be located no closer than 190 feet from the west
property line.
11. That Condition Nos. 1 and 8, 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.
12. That Condition Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Review of City Planning Commission action was requested by Mayor Seymour at the
meeting of May 30, 1978 and public hearing scheduled this date.
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978; 1:30 P.M.
78-84!1
Mayor Seymour stated that since he had requested this item be set for public
hearing, he has received a number of calls from residents living immediately to
the west of subject property regarding their very specific concern that a wall
and berm treatment similar to that which was constructed at the tennis facility
(Tennisland) be constructed along the westerly property line of subject project.
He inquired whether there were individuals in the Council Chamber present to
express concerns other than this wall and berm treatment and several people in-
dicated so.
Councilman Roth inquired and was assured by Miss Santalahti that the gate proposed
on Walnut Street would be used for emergency access only and not as an entrance
or exit to the park.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or his agent wished to address the Council.
Mr. Donald Brown, 270 North Canon Drive, Beverly Hills, agent for the applicant,
advised that they originally asked that the berm treatment be eliminated because
of problems with children experienced at the Tennisland facility, however, if
installation of the berm would resolve the neighbors problems, they would certainly
agree to using this berm and wall treatment in lieu of the eight foot wall. He
advised, because of the concerns of homeowners the plan for this expansion to the
recreation vehicle park was carefully thought out and will provide 28 camping sites
on a 2.2 acre area, none of which sites will be closer than 250 to 300 feet to
any of the homes; the area will have the character of an. open park and there will
be two barbeque pits which will be the only places where open fires will be'permitted.
He summarized that they have realized there is a great demand for clean camp sites
and he felt the expanded facility would be an asset to the City as well as an ex-
cellent interim use. He also noted that the property in question is adjacent to
property which is in the CR zone.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council.
Mrs. Betty Ronconi, 1241 South Walnut Street, stated that she is in opposition to
the whole concept of the tenting facility since she did not feel she would choose
to live near a campground~ She voiced satisfaction with the way the Planning
Commission handled the buffering, with the exception that they do feel the land-
scaped berm would tie the property in with Tennisland and provide a much nicer
appearance. The camping area in question would be less than 100 feet from the
homes on Walnut Street and it is important to the homeowners for resale value
that the use be buffered in the best way possible. She added that there are at
the present time many semipermanent residents in the recreational vehicle park
and inquired what would stop people from also using the tent area as a semi-
permanent residence. She referred to the drainage problem experienced in the
area from West Street down to Walnut, Goodhue and Hampstead streets for about one
mile. She objected to the proposed dog run to be used in conjunction with a tent
area and recreational vehicle park and noted that the surface water coming from
the dog run would then be polluted and would run into the streets in their area.
Mrs. Ronconi also stated her objection to the fact that this would be a 24-hour
operation and that people setting up tents at night and group camping would create.
a lot of noise. She stated that the requirements set forth for buffering by the
78-842
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Planning Commission are very important to the homeowners and that if the Council
elects to approve the conditional use permit, she hopedthey would consider con-
tinuing these requirements and in addition, require the placement of a landscaped
earthen berm as these are necessary to protect the homes and living environment
of the surrounding residents.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mrs. Ronconi mentioned semipermanent residents
at the recreational vehicle park and asked if she could document that people
are living there on such basis with names and addresses, since perhaps the City
Attorney should be looking into this matter. As she recalled, that was not the
purpose nor the intent of the recreational vehicle park which was intended for
transient use.
Mr. Ralph Somlin, 1307 Walnut Street, voiced his objections to the fact that the
area immediately adjacent to Walnut Street is currently being used as an unsuper-
vised dog run and that they allow people into the park with any number of dogs,
any size. Further, he noted that it is difficult to keep a tent area as clean
as might be possible with recreational vehicles or homes. He suggested that the
dog run area be placed towards the center to keep the dogs confined to the recrea-
tional vehicle park. He noted that at a meeting earlier, the management of
Vacationland indicated they would not allow anything larger than pup tents at
the campground facility and that when he thinks of what this will look like from
his property he is certain it will contaminate his view, therefore, the 3-foot
berm should be built.
Mrs. Alice Valdez, 1303 South Walnut Street, stated that she lives directly across
the street from the proposed dog run area and drainage ditch. She advised that
she met two women from the recreational vehicle park in March of last year. and
that she is aware of one of these women still living there. Further, she advised
that there are children whom she sees entering the vehicle park underneath the
fence across from her home.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor offered Mr. Brown
an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mr. Brown stated with reference to the water drainage problem mentioned that
this is a problem with which the City must deal whether or not the expansion is
allowed; this development would help to improve it by taking water via gutters
out to Walnut Street. He was of the opinion that the dog run situation was com-
pletely blown out of perspective. He noted that theirs is the only recreational
vehicle park in the City which has even concerned itself with the dog situation
by showing an enclosed run in their plans. This dog run has nothing to do with
the existing drainage problem. He emphasized that this dog run area is not critical
to their project and they have compromised with the Planning Commission by agreeing
to place it along the north property line and at least 190 fee~ from the westerly
property line.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Brown explained that they do not maintain
statistics which could tell what the average length of stay is at the recreational
vehicle park, but he would estimate it is 3 to 4 days. He added that they do
however have people in the park on a monthly basis, particularly during the winter
months, and these individuals pay a monthly rate. He added that the area adjacent
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27, !978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-843
to the westerly property line is currently not used for anything except that
since the grass has grown, they have allowed some of the people from Vacationland
to use it for recreation.
Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that there was lengthy debate by the Planning
Commission over the matter of length of tenancy in recreational vehicle parks
prior to approving same, and that it was expressly understood that the City did
not wish to get into any kind of substandard "tent city".
Mayor Seymour s,,mm-rized that he was somewhat disappointed with what he has heard
from the area residents about the management of Vacationland, because to him the
operation appeared to be first class. _It concerned him greatly to hear about the
animal and tenancy problems wherein it appears they are running almost a permanent
housing facility there with children attending local schools, which was never the
intention of the City in granting the conditional use permit. He questioned whether
Mr. Brown felt the management would accept the responsibility of the placement of
a condition upon Conditional Use Permit No. 1826 which would also affect the
existing recreational vehicle park to the effect that no one will remain in that
facility beyond a period of 30 days.
Mr. Brown questioned from an enforcement standpoint, would this 30 days be restricted
to 30 days per year, or 30 days within two months, etc.
Mayor Seymour advised that he felt the management should' advise guests at the end
of their 30-day period that they are required to leave; and, if they return the
next week or 3 weeks later then they would be entitled to another 30 days, but
that the recreational vehicle park management must have some control to see that
the facility, which was not intended to be a permanent residence, is being properly
utilized.
Mayor Seymour cautioned that he, for one, would, if he learned that children were
living in a recreational vehicle park and attending school, see to it that the
conditional use permit was set for a public hearing on revocation.
In addition, Mayor Seymour suggested perhaps the animal problems would best be
handled by not allowing any in the recreational vehicle park or campground area,
to which Mr. Brown responded that he feels the management of Vacationland does
a very good job of controlling the animals on site and addresses this problem
more effectively than other recreational vehicle parks; that this restriction
would be a hardship on them in that most people do travel with their pets; and
further inquired whether this restriction would also apply to all other recrea-
tional vehicle parks in the City.
In response to Councilman Kott, Mr. Brown advised that it is a .true statement that
people could be arriving during the night, that their's is similar to a motel-hotel
operation in that they are open 24 hours.
Councilman Roth offered the following suggestions which he felt would resolve the
homeowners' complaints regarding the dogs: (1) require that every dog while in the
park be on a leash; (2) the only time the dogs be allowed to run free, they be re-
quired to be in the dog run area; (3) that the proposed dog run be moved from its
location to run north and south along the center line of the project as far away as
possible from the homeowners, i.e., to the most easterly portion of the park.
78-844
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood's earlier inquiry as to the current definition
of tourist or transient in the Anaheim Municipal Code, Mr. Hopkins advised the
Code refers to tourists or transients as individuals who may seek temporary housing
or living quarters for one or more times for a period not exceeding a week or 7 days.
Mayor Seymour stated that he felt this to be too severe a restriction noting that
many people have vacation periods extending 2 to 3 weeks and he felt therefore to
accommodate tourists with such vacations, a time period of 30 days maximum should
be allowed.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that there
would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts
due to the approval of this negative declaration since the Anaheim General Plan
designates subject property for commercial-recreational land uses commensurate
with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no signif-
icant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the negative
declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim
Planning Department. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-411 for adoption, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 1826, subject to the City Planning Commission conditions and stipula-
tions made by the petitioner before the Planning Commission and further subject to
the addition of a berm in conjunction with the 8-foot wall to be constructed along
the westerly property line, said berm to be planted with trees on 15-foot centers;
that the maximum period for tenancy allowed be 30 days; and that the dog run be
relocated to the most easterly portion of the park possible and oriented to the
north-south rather than east-west; and with the requirement that all dogs in the
park be on a leash unless confined within the dog run area. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-411: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1826.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood and Kott
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-411 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Kott stated that he does not believe this use is compatible with the
residential area immediately to the west, particularly because 'of the fact that
it is operated on a 24-hour basis.
MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the
City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending the Anaheim
Municipal Code to establish a 30 day period maximum for tenancy in recreational
vehicle/tent facilities. MOTION CARRIED.
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
78-845
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1571(READV.) TO AMEND CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL: Submitted by James P. and Phyllis J. Crawford, to amend Condition Nos~.
14 and 15 of Resolution No. 75R-625 relating to hours of operation and to permit
an outdoor tennis facility and private club with on-sale liquor under Conditional
Use Permit No. 1571 on property located on the east side of Walnut Street, south
of Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-107, recommended
approval of the amended conditions as requested.
Miss Santalahti reviewed the City Planning Commission findings which basically
indicate that no one appeared in opposition; that the existing use has had no
detrimental effect and that the extended hours requested (6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.)
meet the criteria of zoning for Conditional Use Permit No. 1571.
Mr. Donald Brown, 270 North Canon Drive, Beverly Hills, Agent for the applicant,
stated that he felt Tennisland is an asset; that it is a private club servicing
the community and its dues-paying members would like very much to be able to come
out earlier and play later, therefore they are respectfully requesting to be able
to extend their hours of operation.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in favor or in
opposition, there being no response, he declared the public hearing closed.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination of
the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 1 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for
an environemental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
CoUncilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-412 for adoption, amending Condition
Nos. 14 and 15 of Resolution No. 75R-625 to permit the change in hours of opera-
tion as requested from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-412: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING CONDITION NOS. 14 AND 15 OF RESOLUTION NO. 75R-625 APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 1571.
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-412 duly passed and adopted.
REHEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-53 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1815:
Application of E. O. Rodeffer, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 and ML to
ML on property located on the east side of Dale Avenue, south of Orangethorpe
Avenue, to permit a racquetball facility.
78-846
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-56 and PC78-57,
granted a negative declaration status from the requirement to prepare an EIR
and granted the reclassification and conditional use permit.
At the public hearing held May 30, 1978, the City Council, pursuant to Resolution
Nos. 78R-340 and 78R-341, denied Reclassification No. 77-78-53 and Conditional
Use Permit No. 1815. A request for rehearing was subsequently filed by Rodeffer
Investments and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or his agent were present and wished to address
the Council.
Mr. Harry Schrey, 1720 East Gary Street, Santa Ana, advised that the developer
of subject property intends to have a well dug for water service so that rest-
rooms can be provided in conjunction with the racquetball facility. The alter-
native was an extremely expensive pipeline extending 300,000 feet for the City
of Anaheim to provide water service. He explained that these plans have been
discussed with the City of Anaheim Building and Water Divisions and they could
find no problem with the new proposal. The restrooms would be constructed using
well water and a septic tank leach system, and because they would have to dig very
deep for potable water, they propose to provide a fountain with bottled drinking
water. The bottle itself would be locked inside a metal cabinet. It is also
possible that the water obtained from the well could be drinkable.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Schrey agreed that the City of Buena
Park could provide water service to this property however it is the de-annexation
and annexation which seems to be the problem.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in favor or in
opposition.
Mr.'Ken Griffith, Senior Planner, City of Buena Park, stated that he was not
aware, prior to the meeting, of the applicant's plans to provide water service
to the property via septic tank and water well, and therefore had no guidance
as to how the City of Buena Park might respond to these items. He advised
however that all municipal services, fire, police, water and sewer, are presently
available and could be provided the property from the City of Buena Park. He
referred to the location of the property which is geographically separated from
the City of Anaheim by a freeway overpass and railroad tracks and noted that the
City of Buena Park will most likely be providing major police and fire services
to this property under reciprocal agreements. He co~ented in relation to the
proposal to provide the required restrooms by using a septic tank and water well
that in this part of the County, the population has reached the point where this
type of water and sewer service are no longer desirable from a health or 'sanitary
standpoint. He concluded that the property would more logicall~ be located in
the City of Buena Park and since it will appear to be that way, he requested that
the development be built to City of Buena Park standards.
Councilman Roth recalled that previously the problem was the applicant's
inability to provide the required restrooms and he now has a plan to accom-
plish this. He inquired what other Buena Park standards the project failed
to meet.
78-84 7
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Griffith explained that the parking to be provided would be somewhat
deficient and the building and landscaping proposed are not in character with
what is being built on the remainder of that triangular parcel of property.
Miss Santalahti explained that the property adjacent to the subject parcel,
located in the City of Buena Park, is in their CM zone, whereas subject parcel
is either in or proposed for the City of Anaheim ML zone and there are some
variances in the site development standards.
There were no further persons wishing to speak either in favor or opposition.
In rebuttal, Mr. Schrey advised that the same firm, Hunsacker Development, which
is building on the property across the street from his parcel, as referred to by
Mr. Griffith, would build the racquetball facility and the proposed building will
not look any different and will be compatible. He stated that they have allowed
for more than the required amount of landscaping and will provide 20 parking
spaces. In connection with this, he noted that there are 10 racquetball courts
proposed and the only time there would be 20 cars would be if all of the courts
were filled and each player brought his own car, which has not proven in his
experience to be the case.
In response to concerns regarding fire and police protection, Mr. Schrey explained
that the building would be constructed completely of concrete with steel doors and
jambs; that there will be a security patrol at irregular hours which will check
the facility at least three to four times during the evening. In discussing police
and fire protection with the City of Anaheim, he advised he was given no reason
as to why there should be any problem in the providing of these services under the
City's reciprocal agreement.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood's concerns on vandalism and safety, Mr. Schrey
advised that the bottled water would be locked in a metal cabinet and that signs
would be posted to the effect that the wash water should not be used for drinking.
They will also use a type of faucet which would make it difficult to drink from.
Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Superindentent, explained in response to Councilwoman
Kaywood that there is an ordinance which would permit the digging of a well upon
obtaining a permit from the Utilities Department. In this case, it would appear
the usage would be minimal and it would not be detrimental to the City. He also
explained that anyone using well water does pay a pump tax to the Water District.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood voiced her opposition to the proposal to use a septic tank
in an area where it would otherwise not be recommended.
Councilman Overholt related that his concerns regarding the project were due to
the somewhat isolated location and the fact that he did not wish to create problems
for the City of Buena Park.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution Nos. 78R-413 and 78R-414 for adoption, granting'
Reclassification No. 77-78-53 and Conditional Use Permit 1815, subject to the
conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission as follows:
78-848
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Reclassification No. 77-78-53:
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
2. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
3. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
4. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
5. That appropriate water assessment fees, as determined by the Director of
Public Utilities, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
6. That Condition Nos. 1, 3 and 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Conditional Use Permit No. 1815:
1. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 77-78-53, now pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specification on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
and 2.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-413: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE
CHANGED. (77-78-53, ML)
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-414: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1815.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kott, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-413 and 78R-414 duly passed and adopted.
78-849
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1810: Application of Donald E. Boucher,
Robert L. Wallis and Mary Ann Javelera, to permit a veterinary hospital on CL(SC)
zoned property located on the northwest side of Rio Grande Drive, southwest of
Fairmont Boulevard with code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-64, granted
negative declaration status from the requirement to prepare an EIR and granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1810, subject to certain conditions.
At the public hearing held May 30, 1978, the City Council, pursuant to Resolution
No. 78R-342, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 1810. A request for a rehearing
was subsequently filed by Bill Asawa, Agent for the applicant, and following
consideration and approval by the City~ Council, public hearing was scheduled this
date.
The City Clerk advised that communication had been received from HACMAC recom-
mending approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1810 with revised plans as sub-
mitted, showing no access onto Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Mayor Seymour stated that from the previous public hearing on this conditional
use permit, he sensed the Council's feeling that they had serious concern re-
garding access to Santa Ana Canyon Road and therefore questioned whether the
City Council would be agreeable to waiving formal staff report on this item so
that they might get to the heart of the matter, the access situation.
There was no dissent to the Mayor's suggestion.
The Mayor recognized the applicant, Dr. Robert E. Grose, who advised that the
original application for conditional use permit was to build a veterinary hospital
only with entrance and exit from Rio Grande. It was at the request of the City
Planning Commission and Planning Department staff that proposals for development
of the entire shopping center were drawn up, because they wished to see the whole
shopping center concept. For this reason, the development concept for the entire
center was presented at the last public hearing. He stressed that his veterinary
hospital is only one small portion of that total area.
In response to Mayor Seymour, Dr. Grose advised that he would be willing to accept
approval of the conditional use permit without any access point onto Santa Ana
Canyon Road and further with the aid of a plot plan, pointed out that there were
several conditions imposed upon approval of his conditional use permit by the
City Planning Commission which he felt should be reviewed as they do not directly
relate to the development of this property, but rather to the shopping center.
He described Condition Nos. 8, 9 and 10, and with the use of the plot plan
demonstrated that these did not relate to his property. These conditions con-
cerned purchase of the remnant parcel; dedication of the minimhm 10-foot wide
trail easement which relates to the rear portion of the entire parcel; and the
provision of an access easement for use by the adjacent property to the west. He
also advised that Condition No. 12 should be modified in that these three condi-
tions are mentioned in its context. He respectfully requested that Condition
Nos. 8, 9 and 10 be deleted. In his presentation, Dr. Grose also questioned Condi-
tion No. 7 relating to the undergrounding of utility pole lines and was advised
since there were no poles on his property this would cause him no problem.
78-850
.~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.~.
Mr. Bill Asawa, 540 North Golden Circle, Santa Ana, developer of the adjacent
property, concurred with Dr. Grose, stating that the issues raised in Condition
Nos. 8, 9 and 10 would be covered when the shopping center property is developed.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone else wished to address the Council either in favor
or in opposition, there being no response he declared the public hearing closed.
Miss Santalahti confirmed for Council that Condition Nos. 8, 9 and 10 should be
deleted in their entirety from the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1810
and Condition ll should be revised to reflect that Council is considering Revision
No. 2 of Exhibit 1 and Exhibit Nos. 2 through 5; Condition 12 should be modified
to delete references to Conditions 8, 9 and 10.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-415 for adoption, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 1810, with deletion of City Planning Commission Condition Nos. 8, 9
and l0 and revision to Condition Nos. 11 and 12 to reflect the revised plan and to
delete references to the removed conditions as outlined by Miss Santalahti. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-415: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1810.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mmyor declared Resolution No. 78R-415 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1972-1 - REFORMATION: To
consider objections to the reformation of Street Lighting Maintenance District
1972-1 as Street Lighting Maintenance District 1972-1-B in Tract No. 1959.
Mayor Seymour asked how many individuals were present to speak on the reformation
of the Street Lighting District and receiving no response inquired whether the
public had been notified.
Mr. Bob Herr advised that the property had been posted in accordance with legal
requirements and that publication had been made in the newspaper.
Brief Council discussion was held during which a majority of the members indicated
they felt the individuals involved should receive a mailed notice of public hearing.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the public
hearing on reformation of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1972-1 was
continued to the meeting of July 18, 1978, to allow time for mailing of notices
to the affected property owners. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, it was
determined to be a policy of the City Council that notices of public hearing in
connection with formation or reformation of street lighting districts be mailed
to affected property owners. MOTION CARRIED.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-851
RECESS: By general Council consent, the City Council recessed for 5 minutes.
(5:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:05 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - 1978-79 RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN (BUDGET): The
City Clerk announced that recommendations had been submitted from the Public
Utilities Board (PUB) on alternatives to the Utilities Budget, a request had
been received from WE TIP for funding on their program in Anaheim, and addi-
tional recommendations were submitted from the City Manager on the Budget.
City Manager Talley stated that during~the week a majority of time has not only
been spent reviewing the present status of the Anaheim budgetary process, but
also all those in Orange County. Conclusions of the review were presented in
his memorandum dated June 27, 1978.
Mr. Talley then briefed the Council on his memorandum dated June 27, 1978,
(on file in the City Clerk's Office)--"Additional Recommendations to Balance
the 1978-79 Resource Allocation Plan" recommending that the City Council
adopt the plan with the three basic changes listed on Page 1 as follows:
1. Transfer $1,525,753 from the General Benefits Fund to the General Fund
on a temporary basis pending clarification of the State .of California's
surplus formula disbursements.
2. Include items submitted to Council in the City Manager's letter of
June 20, 1978, less the $50,000 for library books and supplies (priority
ranking number 25).
3. Include interim modifications to the proposed 1978-79 Resource Alloca-
tibn Plan occurring since the presentation of the document to Council on
May 31, 1978.
In concluding his presentation, Mr. Talley stated the most prudent way to
reach the $1.5 million change in either budget or revenues would be to address
that major issue of next July with the assistance of City Department Heads and
the clientele each department serves and through a series of hearings in
September-November, make decisions that would be implemented 8 or 9 months in
advance so that by July of 1979, the City would be functioning at the net effect
of the Proposition 13 level. Also submitted were another approximately $742,000
worth of revenue changes that could be made, but they were very tentative in
nature or had other ramifications which should be discussed with the Council,
some not taking place until October 1, 1978. The areas the Council had to decide
today were--whether or not they would be including.a street sweeping program,
whether or not rate adjustments would be made in the utilities and what, if any-
thing, would be done with the special interest requests.
The Mayor then asked if anyone was present to speak on the four special requests
(TLC, Hotline, Halloween Festival, Orange County Community Development Council).
78-852
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Elsie Bonnett, 314 North Emily Street, stated that she worked at the TLC
Center at the Salvation Army. It was very important that the senior citizens
keep the Center because they received a nutritious meal there every day, and it
provided companionship that they would not otherwise have available to them, as
well as transportation to the Center. In essence, she was asking that the rental
payment charge be provided to continue the program at the Salvation Army Center.
The Mayor confirmed that Mrs. Bonnett was requesting that the $2,000 necessary for
the senior citizens TLC Program be appropriated. A show of hands in the Chamber
audience indicated approximately 4 seniors present favoring the request.
Myldred Jones, West Orange County Hotline, stated that she was requesting $1,200
from the City averaging $1 per Hotline call. She expressed appreciation to the
staff of the Human Services Department who discussed the matter with her and who
were very thorough and courteous.
Ms. Rita Le Fever, 1400 North Harbor Boulevard, stated that since the previous
meeting, prominent businessmen had committed themselves to co-chair the associa-
tion for the staging of the Halloween Festival and parade. Among those partici-
pating would be the Bank of America, Disneyland, Carl Karcher Enterprises and
Wilson Foods. As well, a businessman had spoken with her after she left the
meeting on June 20, 1978 noting Councilwoman Kaywood's reference to the darkness
of portions of the parade route. He assured her that he would work with the
association when the routes were decided by traveling those routes to insure
that darkness would not be a problem in the forthcoming parade.
The Mayor, on behalf of Ms. Le Fever, reported that favorable input had been
received from the Bank of America, as well as Disneyland, in their desires to see
that the parade continuealthough he did not have specifics as yet. It was
hoped that within the next week, a meeting would be held wherein a co-chairman
would be appointed so as to be able to move ahead on the parade. The Council
at'this time should consider a potential expenditure of between $5,000 and $6,000
for the Halloween Festival. Part of the proposed budget included $10,000 for a
City float in the parade. The leadership with which he spoke did not see the
necessity of a City entering a $10,000 float in the parade, but felt it would be
more successful with the participation of small business people getting together
and entering their own float if the City did not dominate the parade with their
$10,000 float. Thus, if the Council were of mind, they could cut in half the
amount in the current budget for a parade float to $5,000. He was optimistic
however the committee could raise all the money themselves and not need any
assistance from the City. Until that time and on behalf of the committee, he
again asked Council to consider a Halloween Festival expenditure of $5,000 to
$6,000 along with the reduction in the expenditure for a float from $10,000 to
$5,000.
In concluding, Ms. Le Fever stated that relative to Councilman Roth's previous
request as to ideas for fund raising, she wanted to reserve that aspect until
the meeting of the committee.
Relative to the WE TIP request, the City Clerk stated that no amount was specified,
but the previous year the Council funded the program in the amount of $1,000. ·
78-8.53
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
In answer to Councilman Kott regarding the function of the WE TIP organization,
Lieutenent Wilcox explained that it was an organization of people taking informa-
tion from citizens and reporting to various Police departments on narcotics
information. This was done in a coded manner where rewards were given to people
for turning in information. The organization had been in existence approximately
7 to 8 years. Approximately 8 to 10 letters of information a week were received
by the Police Department from WE TIP.
Mr. Tom Noble, Transportation Coordinator from the Orange County Community Develop-
ment Council, stated they were requesting $3,942 for the operation expense of one
of the vans which transported senior citizens to and from TLC nutrition sites,
specifically the West Anaheim site. Thee van transported approximately 11,000
senior citizens or 11,000 transportation services. The total program was running
approximately $1.82 per unit of service which was excellent as compared to the
Transit District and other transportation providers. Providing operations for
senior citizens was the number one priority from Washington D. C., the State of
California and County of Orange. The approximate 11,000 transportation services
involved (1) transportation to and from nutrition sites; (2) medical trips; and
(3) social and shopping trips. Travelling to the nutrition site was one unit,
stopping at a grocery store on the way home another unit--to and from the nutrition
site represented 2 units or 2 transportation links. Approximately 20. Anaheim
seniors were served per day, 5 days a week, Monday through Friday.
The Mayor concluded therefore that 100 seniors a week, S2 weeks a year, represented
less than $1 per person.
The Mayor then asked if anyone from the public was desirous of being heard relative
to the 1978-79 Resource Allocation Plan.
Mr. Duke Clarke, 748 North Resh, stated that since the passage of Proposition 13,
City Manager Talley and others had made several proposals for additional taxes
which would replace the revenues previously collected from property taxes. Those
actions represented an attempt to completely contradict and nullify the will of
the people who voted for the Jarvis Initiative on June 6, 1978. They did not
ask for a tax shift, but a tax reduction. Furthermore, they wanted reductions
without sacrificing essential services such as Police and Fire. He requested
that the Council continue to review all proposals made to shift and replace
taxes. In that way, the people's mandate would be implemented.
Mr. Joseph White, 809 West Broadway, first stated that he did not understand the
budget as presented and hoped for a different format in the coming year. He did
however refer to the proposed budget, page C-184, and noted that $1.8 million was
proposed for the 1978-79 Budget with $2 million projected for 1979-80. He was and
had been of the opinion that the Data Processing aspect should.be put out to bid
and noted further that a report previously prepared by Ernst and Ernst indicated
the City was only spending about $400,000 for data processing at the time, but it
had now escalated to $1.8 million.
Mr. White also explained that 2 years prior when a Charter Review Committee had
been formed, they were in unanimous accord on one thing--that the City Council
should have a staff of at least one, someone hired by them to work for them.
He believed that action would be more beneficial than the Man In Washington
Program.
78-854
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Fred Brown, 1531 Minerva, stated he would like to make a couple of recommen-
dations based on having a very limited knowledge of finance. He questioned the
numbers given relative to labor costs which he could not justify in his mind.
He talked to representatives of the City and was enlightened based upon the nature
of the present budget versus budgets of old, the line item budget, a program budget
was more difficult to comprehend in its initial stages, but after a couple of years,
it would be easier to understand. Mr. Brown emphasized that he wanted to know what
the costs were and how they were arrived at today, not in 4 or 5 years. He did not
want to learn that a 10 percent override was put into every department's budget
just to compensate for all the mistakes in the new program.
Mr. Brown continued that he came to the conclusion that a much better and more
economical way to approach the offset of the $5 million loss due to Proposition
13 was to take a fixed percentage out of each department without specifically
telling that department where to make cuts. Thus, the Department Head would be
charged with eliminating that fixed percentage from his budget in the most favorable
way. He recommended if the Council could not come up with specific conclusions of
eliminating cars or employees, the approach he recommended might be a viable one.
Mr. Brown also recommended prior to Budget hearings that in the month of May or
as early as April, the Council institute a work session program amongst themselves
with department heads or the City Manager in order to become familiar with the
budget items. Thirty days time to adopt the budget the size of the City's was
a tremendous task and more time should be devoted to its evaluation. As well,
he was hopeful that next year the budget would be easier to understand.
Mrs. Dolly Quinn stated she had worked for the TLC Program for 5 months. She
explained the reason why so few senior citizens were present to speak on the
budget was due to the fact that many had medical problems and could not attend,
and as well, it was difficult for them to climb the stairs to the Council
Chamber.
The Mayor asked if anyone else was present who wished to speak on the budget;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing and solicited Council
input.
The Mayor commented that the intent of Proposition 13 was to approach it with
the attitude of making cuts wherever possible and to find "fat", keeping in
mind not to disturb basic City services such as Police and Fire. He did not
believe what the City Manager had offered in his latest proposal, just received,
was an answer to Proposition 13. The approach suggested that $1.5 million be
robbed from the General Fund on a temporary basis until such time as other
sources of income were found to offset that amount or until the City Council
was willing to make hard decisions to cut. If the City Manager's recommendations
were accepted, no cuts would be made as requested, but instead-other sources of
revenue instituted that would be broad and many under the label of user fees.
The Council would then begin to respond philosohpically to those fees and conse-
quently rationalize and justify those fees; the bottom line being there would
never be any cuts. He would prefer to make the very best attempt possible to
react to Proposition 13 and the will of the people as he felt it was expressed
to find where the Budget could be cut. The cuts made to date amounted to
approximately $630,000 and when compared to the entire Budget as a percentage,
78-85 5
~it~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
it represented a reduction of less than one-tenth of one percent. Even re-
moving the utilities and considering only the operating budget of some $57
million to $58 million needed to keep the City going, the cuts proposed would
only represent two percent, something which he did not feel could'be accepted
by the people of Anaheim as a real effort to trim "fat". With that background,
Mayor Seymour explained item by item with accompanying comments the document
submitted by him entitled "Budget Revisions" which included some of the City
Manager's recommendations. The revisions were his proposed recommendations to
bring about budget cuts as follows:
Additional Revenues from Existing Base:
additional Sales Tax received 1977-78
increased Sales Tax 1978-79
previous increased Sales Tax estimate
previous increased 1978-79 motor vehicle
TOTAL
$ 294,000
400,000
150,000
250,000
$1,094,000
Transfer of Revenues and Utility Earnings:
transfer of sewer construction and maintenance
transfer from workers compensation
transfer of Utility Funds
TOTAL
$ 250,000
400,000
500~000
$1,150,000
Balance Remaining to be Funded: $2,656,000
BUDGET REDUCTIONS:
Recommendations of City Manager June 20, 1978 excluding $50,000 - Library
Books and Supplies - $630,247.
Control Center #68 - Mechanical Maintenance - Vehicle and Equipment
Purchase - $695,082.
Eliminate Intergovernmental Relations, excluding League and other dues - $130,071.
Eliminate Technology Application - $52,793.
Eliminate CETA Funded Overages - $492,098.
Reduce Travel and expense ($175,000) by one-half except Convention Center and
Stadium - $87,5000.
Eliminate remainder of Priority #4 - Personnel - $9,400.
Reduce cost of City float in Priority #8 - Halloween Parade - $5,000.
Accept Priority #19 - Park Administration - $17,312.
Accept Priority #24 - Park Maintenance - $101,496.
Accept Priority #27 - Employee Benefits - $43,645.
Accept Priority #30 - Engineering Design - $122,694.
Accept Priority #35 - Planning Department - $35,922.
Accept Priority #38 - Personnel System - $21,374.
Reduce Staff Development and Seminars ($88,500) by one-half - $44,250.
Eliminate Fall Pay Raises for all Management, Supervisors and Program
Managers - $494,106.
Eliminate Priority #40 - Safety Administration - $30,790.
TOTAL BUDGET CUTS - $3,013,780
Plus additional revenues and transfers - $2,656,000.
TOTAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS - $5,669,780.
78-856
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1:30 P.M.
ADDITIONAL BUDGET ACTIONS:
1. Transfer balance of travel and expense to Council Contingency Fund and
require Council approval of all travel and expense in excess of $100/occasion.
2. Transfer balance of Staff Development and Seminars to Council Contingency'
Fund and require Council approval of all expenses in excess of $50/occasion.
3. Council to appoint a Blue Ribbon Committee to recommend changes in Budget
Format to clarify and make the Budget understandable. In addition, make
recommendations on future budget cuts that will be necessary in 1979-1980
fiscal year.
In concluding his presentation, the Mayor stated that although his proposal
might not be a cure-all, he would prefer to hammer out each of the recommen-
dations one by one rather than have the Council abdicate its responsibility
and institute user fees which would be a prostitution of what the voters
intended with Proposition 13. In addition, the City Manager could better
advise what the total layoff would be if his recommendations were accepted
thus, in his estimation, it would involve the combination of 13 full-time
positions, 13 CETA positions and 10 part-time positions. It was the beginning
of a responsible answer to Proposition 13.
Relative to the Budget format, the Mayor reiterated that he did not understand
it and it was extremely difficult to get through the document. Consistent with
the change in the Budget format and with the serious decisions that were going
to have to be made in 1979-80, he recommended the creation of a special high-
powered Blue Ribbon Committee composed of the best expertise in the industrial
and commercial sector available in the City who would be willing to loan executives
from their controllers or budget Departments to assist in revamping the Budget so
as to make it an understandable document for both the elected official and the
public. As well, he would like to see that Blue Ribbon Committee make recommenda-
tions to the Council as to how the City was going to live with Proposition 13 in
1979-80 and 1981.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (6:15 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (6:30 P.M.)
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the 1978-79 Budget be amended according
to the Budget revisions submitted by him dated June 27, 1978. Councilman Kott
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth first commented that he was very inter-
ested in using the talent available in the community on a Blue Ribbon Committee
and suggested sending letters to the top 25 largest corporations asking their
assistance. He maintained that it was good business to have business involved
in government and he was in complete accord with the idea.
78-857
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth continued that he further agreed with the Mayor on some of the
areas mentioned in his recommendations which needed to be looked at. He was in
accord and believed the City Manager was also in accord, but there were things
that were not in the right perspective, one being the amount of funds coming
back from the State surplus and the strings attached to those funds such as, if
raises were given to employees, funds could not be accepted. Thus, there were
many gray areas relative to the funds although those funds belonged to the
taxpayers. Before taking action, therefore, he wanted to understand what stipu-
lations were attached to the funds, how they would affect Anaheim and employees
raises which were already committed. He also had a deep concern on what restraints
the County might apply to cities since the County had to make radical cuts which
in turn might affect the City financially. Those were two areas not clear in his
mind.
Also, in briefly reviewing the Mayor's Budget and recommendations, he noted some
suggestions quite contrary to those of the City Manager, especially relative to
CETA overage reductions. The City Manager spoke about $250,000, the Mayor's
Budget showed $492,000 thus the difference called for a response from staff
before making an intelligent decision as to whether or not those recommendations
could be accepted. If that dialogue was not going to take place, he was not
prepared at this time to make radical cuts although both proposals contained a
great deal of merit. He commented that if the Council accepted either the Mayor's
recommendations or the City Manager's, they would not necessarily be locked into
those amounts because changes could be made during the year as was the case. the
prior year. He saw no way of completely accepting the Mayor's budget, but was
looking to the City Manager to provide time for the Council to look at State
funds and the County's effect on the City's budget.
Councilwoman Kaywood indicated that she had problems with the Mayor's recommen-
dations and considered it glib to say that pay raises for management would be
eliminated. She recalled there was some tacit commitment that there would be
a raise, and management had worked themselves right into the ground without any
complaints,and on nights and weekends as well. The City could not be run without
management and it was an affront to them to eliminate such raises.
Councilwoman Kaywood continued that she had listened to the Mayor for five years
relative to cutting out the "fat" in City budget and it seemed he was admitting
that he had not done a good job. She did not believe that to be true, but in fact,
perhaps too good a job had been done. Many things had been cut year after year
and items could be deferred only so long before collapsing. If the City had a
fattened budget, their job would be very easy at this time. She did not think
there was any "fat" in the budget. As an example, two years ago the City cut back
on street light conversions. Then it would have taken $50,000 to convert all of
them, now it was $60,000 to convert less than all, and the conversion was again
being deferred when that action could save energy, be more economical and efficient.
That was one item and another was the delay in the purchasing of a fire truck, thus
having to retain a 1949 vehicle listed as a safety hazard. Such savings were
questionable and the City could not afford to do such things and say that was "fat".
78-858
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
In concluding, Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that if every level of government
had lived up to what Anaheim was doing, the current problem would not have arisen.
With a tax rate of 88 cents, the City was the lowest in the County in spite of
being the largest city with the best services available and no waste. With a
$40,000 home on an 88 cent tax base, taxes were $72.60 a year for all services
provided in Anaheim. The budget the City Manager presented before Jarvis was.
set to cut the rate back to 82 cents or $67 a year for all services of the same
house. It was necessary to remind the citizens again that the City had not been
wasting anything, but was operating at a low level, the best in the County, and
there was nothing to apologize for.
Councilman Overholt stated that he had expressed his disagreement with the Mayor
on the interpretation of the successful passing of Proposition 13. His concern
as expressed at the June 20, 1978 meeting when he voted to increase the room tax
was that he wanted to vote for time to give the Council an opportunity to evaluate
what was going to come from Sacramento, if anything, and what Proposition 13 would
really mean to the City. He felt the same this week as he did last relative to
the motion on the floor. He had received the Mayor's proposal at the first of
the meeting and did not have an opportunity to review it. Thus, he agreed with
the expression of Councilman Roth that it was necessary to have time to evaluate
what was going to happen under Proposition 13 which he was committed to support
as he viewed it. Therefore, he would vote against the motion.
Councilman Kott stated that he agreed with most of the Mayor's proposals, but he
had additional areas of his own which he wanted to discuss with the City Manager.
The Mayor indicated it would be more appropriate presently to speak to the motion
on the floor. Councilman Kott then continued that there was a mood in the State
and across the Country relative to taxation and in his mind a large part of the
problem was due to the fact that elected officials by default had abdicated their
responsibility to the bureaucrats in all areas of government. It was not his
philosophy to do so and he agreed with the Mayor on the revisions submitted and,
in~ fact, believed them to be rather lenient in many areas. Relative to trimming
"fat", even the City Manager in one of his documents admitted that government
service did not operate without "fat". His main thrust was to eliminate as much
of that "fat" as possible without interfering with basic services and items
that people traditionally had. That was his whole philosophy.
In closing, the Mayor reminded the Council that no Council Member offered any
recommended cuts above and beyond those of his and Councilman Kott's although
recommendations made by Councilwoman Kaywood amounted to perhaps $500 to $1,000.
That was the total response, and otherwise the posture was to take a wait-and-see
attitude. If they believed the cuts he recommended to be such an overkill, he
asked them to reflect on the fact that the $3 million total budget cuts (see
page 2 of recommendations) he was recommending a 1.4 percent reduction in the total
City budget. If utilities were removed, it represented a 5 percent cut. The wait-
and-see posture would not bring about recommendations for cuts from the bureacracy,
but more sources of revenues. The people had asked elected officials at all levels
of government to once and for all take the forefront in decision making and make
meaningful cuts. If this was not done, Proposition 13 meant absolutely nothing to
elected officials of the City.
78-859
City ~all~ Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the following
vo tM:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
MOTION: Councilman Roth thereupon moved to adopt the proposed 1978-79 Resource
Allocation Plan in accordance with the City Manager's recommendations in memo-
randum dated June 27, 1978, including:
1. Transfer $1,525,753 from the General Benefits Fund to the General Fund on
a temporary basis pending clarification of the State of California's surplus
formula disbursements.
2. Include items submitted to Council in the City Manager's letter of June 20,
1978, less the $50,000 for library books and supplies (priority ranking number 25).
3. Include interim modifications to the proposed 1978-79 Resource Allocation
Plan occurring since the presentation of the document to Council on May 31, 1978.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth noted that this was not the end of the
Budget for the fiscal year, but instead an intelligent approach to it that was
necessary at this time.
Mayor Seymour predicted all that would occur would be the search for additional
revenues, bailout monies, user fees and other sources of taxes. He doubted
that when the whole process was over and the fiscal year at an end, if a 2 or
3 percent cut in the budget would be accomplished. He did not believe that would
occur.
Councilman Kott stated it was his feeling that anyone who would vote for the
Resource Allocation Plan as presented should be recalled. In his opinion, it
was loaded with "fat" and a rip-off to the taxpayer of the community. In addition,
he predicted that when layoffs would occur, clerks and laborers would be gone,
but department heads and other high positions would be retained drawing the largest
amount of money. He believed further that it was an abdication of the responsibility
of the elected official not to trim items that were not in any way related to services
the citizens of the community receive. He did not understand that position and would
not support it.
Councilman Overholt, in speaking for the motion on the floor, stated that he
agreed in concept with many of the reductions proposed by the Mayor, but disa-
greed with some. One with which he violently disagreed was the elimination of
any salary improvement for all management personnel amounting to $494,000. That
proposal was particularly offensive to him. In the City Manager's report, it
stated "it would appear appropriate, therefore, after the total long-term effects
of Proposition 13 are known to Council, to schedule a series of work sessions to
determine what continuing levels of service the City should provide, and the
most appropriate means of financing these service levels." He considered that
78-£60
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
an ongoing challange to the Council to have the services provided that met the
revenue the Council felt should be allocated to the City's budget. The greater
challenge, however, would come in the next fiscal year to meet the provisions of
Jarvis. As well, to receive a document at the beginning of a meeting and be asked
to vote on it was naive. Thus, he supported the motion on the floor. He believed
the Council was of the same mind, but that two members wanted to cut now and appar-
ently three members wanted more information before deciding what to do.
Mayor Seymour asked that the majority of the Council who are obviously gOing to
carry the motion to go on record as to whether they were going to favor cuts in
the budget or replacement revenues.
Councilman Roth stated his position was clear and he made it known before the
passage of the Jarvis Initiative. He was not looking for additional sources of
revenue to the point of additional taxation. There was nothing wrong with waiting
to see what the State had to offer. It was a matter of complying with what the
people were trying to convey through the Jarvis Initiative. That was what the
Council had to do after it was known what they had to work with. He would not
favor new taxes, but would take a long look relative to user fees if the City
was losing money. Relative to what he believed his responsibility as a Council
Member in this case, the City Charter stated that he should set policy and he
had to work with the City Manager. Thus, it was imperative to direct the City
Manager as to what the Council wanted and subsequently allow him to do his job
under the Council-Manager form of government. He relied on the City Manager and
department heads who he considered to be a fine group doing their jobs to make
Jarvis as painless as possible.
Before calling for a vote on the question, the Mayor emphasized that he wanted
clarification as to whether or not the majority of the Council was interested in
making cuts. If so, he was interested in pursuing and working with them in
every way, but if they were interested in additional revenues or user fees, he
wonld not invest the time in trying to push for cuts.
Councilman Overholt stated that there were circumstances under which he would
support user fees such as in the case of a particular service which was optional,
for example, swimming lessons. He had already spoken to the subject of potential
cuts and reiterated he agreed with some that the Mayor proposed. However, he
favored working on the budget in work sessions deliberately and intelligently and
it was likely that they would be working on the budget all year long.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would make her decisions on all the facts
and information she could get just as she had done for 8 years. As well, the
department heads had been working on the budget for many months and what cuts
they could best or least afford were presented.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilmen Kott and Seymour voted
"no". MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor clarified for Mr. Talley that as a part of the motion he could assume
that the street sweeping program would be held for further study sessions, and
that the Redevelopment Agency's adoption of the Housing Authority was approved
as part of the motion. The Mayor recommended that the 4 special interests re-
quests amounting to approximately $14,000 would best be discussed in a calmer
environment, and thus were not a part of the motion.
78-861
.C..i.t~ Hal. l~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
114/149: WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY 214 - STADIUM INN MOTEL: Mr. William D.
Roberson, 2785 West Ball Road, requested that the traffic signal assessment
fee of $4,300 assessed in connection with the Stadium Inn Motel, 1820 South
State College Boulevard be reconsidered.
Mayor Seymour asked Traffic Engineer Paul Singer what the computation would be
if the single-family residential formula was applied to the project as had been
done in a similar instance earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Singer indicated that the fee according to that formula would be $936.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the fee for traffic
signal assessment for the Stadium Inn Motel, 1820 South State College Boulevard,
was set at $1,000. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that a mockery had been made of the Council's policy
regarding such fees and expressed her concern that all those who had paid the
fee in the past according to the policy would be approaching the Council for a
waiver.
114/149: WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY 214 - SAGA MOTOR HOTELS AND PROPERTY LOCATED
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BALL AND SUNKIST: The City Clerk announced that two
additional requests for waiver of the subject policy regarding traffic signal
assessment had been received.
Mr. William Roberson stated that Mr. Earl Garr personally requested that he speak
on his behalf. An addition of 662 square feet was made to the Sage Motor Hotel,
1650 South Harbor Boulevard across from Disneyland, and the traffic Signal fee
set at $363.
In answer to the Mayor, Mr. Paul Singer stated that he did not believe the appli-
cation of the residential rate to be comparable in this situation since the use
was commercial and retail commercial use attracted a greater number of trips.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the fee for traffic
signal assessment for the Saga Motor Hotel, 1650 South Harbor Boulevard, was set
at $100. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Norbert Waters, 2501 East Ball Road, then requested a waiver of Council Policy
214 for property located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Sunkist. He
stated his was a speculation building since no leases had been signed and no
financing committed for the project. It was a continuation of an existing building
and would contain 10 units of 11,000 square feet. If he did not acquire his build-
ing permit by Thursday, he would be subject to a number of additional fees as a
result of new energy requirements.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the fee for traffic
signal assessment for property located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and
Sunkist was set at $1,600. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
105/161: PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE - EXTENSION OF TERM TO JULY 19~ 1979: On
motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the extension
of the term of the Project Area Committee (PAC) was approved to July 19, 1979.
MOTION CARRIED.
78-862
~i.ty Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
105/161: PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE - CONFIRMATION OF ELECTIONS: On motion by
Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the June 13, 1978 Project
Area Committee election of the following individuals to fill vacancies or
to new terms for the period July l, 1978 to June 30, 1980 was confirmed:
Don Lee, Diann Marsh, Dorothy Lewis, Larry King and Earl Rhoads. MOTION
CARRIED.
105/161: PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENTS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved
to reappoint Mr. Dirk Bode to the Project Area Committee and to appoint Mr.
Ronald Waltz as a new member of the Committee for the period July 1, 1978 to
June 30, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
175.123: PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - AMENDMENT TO ECONOMY ENERGY AGREEMENT WITH
NEVADA POWER COMPANY: After Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt clarified questions
posed by Councilman Kott relative to the requested amendment, Councilman Roth
offered Resolution No. 78R-416 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated
June 19, 1978 from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-416: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING A LETTER AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 2, 1978, AMENDING THE ECONOMY ENERGY
AGREEMENT OF MAY 25, 1976, WITH NEVADA POWER COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE UTILITIES DIERCTOR TO EXECUTE SAID LETTER AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
Th~ Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-416 duly passed and adopted.
123: PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH BONAFIDE SECURITY
SERVICES: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-417 for adoption as
recommended in memorandum dated June 16, 1978, from the Public Utilities Board.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-417: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH BONAFIDE
SECURITY SERVICE BY MODIFYING HOURS OF SERVICES REDUCING PAYMENT AND EXTENDING THE
TERM THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
SECOND AMENDMENT. (extending term to June 30, 1979)
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-417 duly passed and adopted.
78-863
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
175: PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - PROPOSED INCREASE IN WATER FEES AND RATES:
Mr. Hoyt first announced that today he had deposited a check in the amount of
$417,797.39 representing a refund from Southern California Edison Rate Case,
Docket E8570, covering a locked-in period when they overcharged the City on
fuel adjustment, May 2, 1974 to February 1, 1976. He believed that further
refunds would also be forthcoming covering the period after February 3, 1976.~
Councilman Kott referred to an article in the morning paper regarding water
rates.
Mr. Hoyt stated the article described the action of the Water Problem Committee
of the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) at a meeting which was attended by Ray
Auerbach, Water Superintendent, wherein they were basically delaying any increase
beyond that already noticed in the cost of water sold by the MWD to its agencies
such as Anaheim until they had an opportunity to evaluate fully what would happen
to them because of Proposition 13. The result would probably be that the MWD would
draw on some of its reserves in order to keep going until such time as they reached
a decision as to what was going to occur. If an increase eventually occurred, it
would trigger an increase in the City's retail water rates. He confirmed for
Councilman Kott that a good part of the reason the City was proposing to raise
water rates was because MWD was raising their water rates to the City.
Mr. Ray Auerbach confirmed for Councilman Kott that MWD reserves were in the
neighborhood of $40 million.
Councilman Kott took issue with the fact that such a large reserve was available
and did not believe the MWD should be in the banking business, but in the business
of supplying water. He personally wanted to see the raising of water rates post-
poned through the use of those reserves.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - WATER FEES AND WATER RATES: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that these projects
will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
because potential reduction in water usage as a result of the action would be
insignificant and therefore exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-418 for adoption approving an
increase in water rates a~ recommended by the Public Utilities Board. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-418: A RESOLUTION OF THE CItY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF WATER AS
ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 72R-600 AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NOS. 73R-255, 73R-387,
73R-532, 74R-433, 75R-315, 75R-469, 74R-479 AND 76R-378.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-418 duly passed and adopted.
78-864
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27z 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Relative to the proposed increase in water fees, Mr. Hoyt explained that they
would enable the utilities to recoup the cost of work performed for a developer.
The City installed the primary grid system and subsequently charged an acreage
fee which, at the moment, was not sufficient to recover costs for installing the
water mains. The proposed increase therefore would enable them to do so.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-419 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-419: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF WATER AS
ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 72R-600 AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NOS. 73R-255, 73R-387,
73R-532, 74R-433, 75R-315, 75R-469, 74R-479, 76R-378 AND 78R-418.
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-419 duly passed and adopted.
129: REQUEST FOR FIREWORKS PERMIT - V.F.W. POST 3173: City Attorney Hopkins
explained that the subject application came in after the June 1, 1978 deadline
and if there was any problem, the Fire Department would advise accordingly.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the request of
the V.F.W. Post 3173 for a fireworks permit to sell fireworks from July 1 through
July 4, 1978 was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-38 - REQUEST FOR REHEARING: Request for a second
re~earing on Reclassification No. 77-78-38, proposed CO zoning on property
located at 800 South Harbor Boulevard, was granted and set for July 25, 1978,
at 7:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 175: Before the PUC, Application Nos. 57880 and 57881, Applications of
Airport Service, Incorporated and Orange Coast Sightseeing Company for authority
to adjust its rates, and Decision No. 88974 correcting error in Decision No.
88958 in connection with Application No. 57880.
b. 105: Community Services Board - Minutes of April 13, May 11, 1978.
c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of June 7, 1978.
d. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of June 6, 1978.
e. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of May 16, 1978.
78-865
City Hall~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
f. 175: Monthly report for May 1978 - Customer Service.
2. 108: DINNER DANCEr PUBLIC DANCE AND PRIVATE PATROL PERMITS: The following
permits were approved in accordance With the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Private Patrol Application by California Canine and Patrol Services, 9853
Belfast Avenue, Garden Grove, to provide security service within the City.
(Daniel Ellis Powers, applicant)
b. Dinner Dance Permit for the Miraloma Inn, 3291 Mirol0ma, for dancing Sunday
through Saturday, 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. (Russell Charles Mangold, applicant)
c. Public Dance Permit for the Sociedad Progresista Mexicana, for a dance to
be held July 16, 1978, from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at Carpenter's Hall, 608 West
Vermont Street. (Ruth C. Hernandez, applicant)
d. Private Patrol Permit for Reon Security Patrol, 13832 Taft Street, Garden
Grove, to provide security service in a residential area. (Claude Arnold Reon,
applicant)
MOTION CARRIED.
118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: Both City Manager Talley and City Attorney Hopkins
answered questions posed by Councilman Kott relative to a number of the claims
submitted.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following
claims against the City were denied and referred to the City's insurance carrier
or the self-insurance administrator.
a. Claim submitted by Joseph J. Lo Manto for personal injuries purportedly
sustained as a result of a traffic signal malfunction on or about February 22,
1978.
b. Claim submitted by D. S. Rodenberg for monetary damages purportedly sustained
as a result of electricity turn-off on or about April 11, 1978.
c. Claim submitted by Joseph S. Vargo for monetary damages purportedly sustained
as a result of obstruction in a sewer line at 733 South Mancos on or about May 18,
1978.
d. Claim submitted by Rand D. Doherty for property damage purportedly sustained
as a result of an accident involving a city-owned vehicle.
e. Claim submitted by Greg Gulen for property damages purportedly sustained as
a result of an accident with a city-owned vehicle on or about May 24, 1978.
f. Claim submitted by Patricia G. Julien for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of an accident involving a city-owned vehicle on or about March 23, 1978.
g. Claim submitted by Luis Martinez for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of an accident involving a city-owned vehicle on or about March 22, 1978.
h. Claim submitted by Phyllis A. Nation for vehicle damages purportedly sustained
as a result of a collision with a city-owned vehicle on or about March 22, 1978.
78-866
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 271 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
i. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for property damages purportedly sustained
during black-topping of the street (North Street, east of Harbor Boulevard) on or
about April 10, 1978.
j. Claim submitted by Russell Boyer for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of action by Anaheim Police on or about March 3, 1978.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-420
through 78R-424, 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-420: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Saga Property
Management Corp.; Richard Hoffman, et ux.; Influential Homes Anaheim Hills Home-
owners Association)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-421: 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: ROYAL OAK - SANTA ANA CANYON
ROAD TO SPRING HILL DRIVE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 12-4309-706-16-0000. (Markel Cement Contracting Inc.)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-422: 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: CERRITOS AVENUE AND GILBERT
STgEET TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 795-A.
(Signalite)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-423: 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: EUCLID STREET AND PALAIS ROAD
TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 800-A.
(Signalite)
170: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-424: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF
ANAHEIM BOULEVARD, WEST OF LEMON STREET.
Roll Call Vote;
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
0verholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-420 through 424, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
78-86 7
City Hall,.Ana~.eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
174.123: ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE I ALLEY NORTH OF LINCOLN AVENUE BETWEEN
EMILY AND CLAUDINA STREET: (Account No. 10-4309-761-16-0000) City Manager
Talley clarified for Councilman Kott that the subject item was rightfully
channeled through the City instead of the Redevelopment Agency since the
Agency did not maintain its own enginnering department, but contracted with
the City.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-425 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-425: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: ALLEY IMPROVE-
MENTS - PHASE I - ALLEY N/O LINCOLN AVENUE BETWEEN EMILY STREET AND CLAUDINA
STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4309-761-16-0000; APPROVING
THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened July 27, 1978, 2:00 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-425 duly passed and adopted.
123/167: PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION - CALCOMP AGREEMENT: Councilwoman
Kaywood read Paragraph "E", Page 2 of the proposed agreement for reimbursement
of traffic signal installation cost as follows: "At any time after June 30,
1980, DEVELOPER may notify CITY that the traffic signal is no longer required
by DEVELOPER. DEVELOPER shall not be obligated to reimburse CITY for any
maintenance costs accruing after two (2) months have elapsed from the written
notice." She recalled the reason the City and the developer (Calcomp) were
splitting the $16,000 signal cost was due to the fact that Calcomp was going
to pay for the annual maintenance cost. As the agreement was written, they
were going to pay $8,000 plus maintenance costs for two years only and if the
signal was removed after that time, the City would have to pay for its removal.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated that clause was placed in the agreement in
case Calcomp wanted to put the City on notice that they no longer needed the
signal and the City would be obligated to remove it at an expense of between
$5,000 and $6,000.
City Manager Talley thereupon suggested that the Council direct that the agreement
be amended to where at some period of time if the signal was to be removed, that
it be done at Calcomp's expense.
After a brief discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the subject proposed
agreement be amended to state that if the signal was removed before ten years,
Calcomp would pay for such removal if the City elected to remove it at that
time. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
78-868
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held June 5, 1978, pertaining to the following
application, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-60: Submitted by Hunter's Paradise, Inc., for.a
change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 on property located at 2918 West Ball
Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-115, granted
Reclassification No. 77-78-60 and granted negative declaration status.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-61 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1854 AND VARIANCE
NO. 3027: Submitted by Paul R. and Frances B. Gardner, for a change in zone from
RS-A-43,000 to CL, to permit a racquetball court facility and to permit the con-
tinued use of an existing office building on property located at 3109 West Orange
Avenue with certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-116, PC78-117
and PC78-118, granted Reclassification No. 77-78-61, Conditional Use Permit
No. 1854 and Variance No. 3027, respectively, and granted negative declaration
status.
3. VARIANCE NO. 3015: Submitted by Arthur G. and Linda S. Ricketts, to construct
a tennis court on RS-HS-43,000(SC) zoned property located at 4941 East Crescent
Drive with code waiver of minimum side yard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-114, granted
Variance No. 3015 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
4.- VARIANCE NO. 3016: Submitted by Richard C. and Anice L. Crum, to construct
a warehouse and general office addition on ML zoned property located at 1429 North.
State College Boulevard with certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-119, granted
Variance No. 3016, in part, and granted negative declaration status.
5. VARIANCE NO. 3018: Submitted by J. F. Shea Company, Inc., to construct a
combination block wall/wrought iron fence on RS-7200 zoned property at 530 South
Greenwich Street with code waiver of maximum fence height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-120, granted
Variance No. 3018 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemPtion
determination.
6. VARIANCE NO. 3019 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10437: Submitted by Elmer C. and
Elizabeth B. Drews, Central Baptist Church of Orange County and Roland J. Jensen,
for a 3-lot 132-unit, RM-4000 zoned condominium subdivision on property located
on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, north of Lincoln with code waiver of minimum
lot width.
78-869
City. Ha$l, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-121, granted
Variance No. 3019 and approved Tentative Tract No. 10437 and granted negative
declaration status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1262(READV.~: Submitted by Warren J. and Elwood
D. Ter Beest, to amend condition of approval that a 6-foot wall be constructed
along the property lines on C-R zoned property located at 1221 South West Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-122, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1262 (readv.) and ratified the Planning Director's
categorical exemption determination.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1632(READV.): Submitted by James S. Gregg,
Raymond G. Simpson, John S. Fluor and Robert D. Spurgeon, to amend condition
of approval pertaining to participation in the cost of traffic signal installation
on property located northeasterly of the intersection of Cerritos Avenue and
Sunkist Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-123, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1632(readv.). Environmental Impact Report No. 179
was previously certified.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1858: Submitted by Steven Ray Pittman and Ottis
F. and Elinor D. Pittman, to permit a cat kennel with maintenance and storage
yard for heavy equipment on ML zoned property located at 1401 North Jefferson
Street with waiver of permitted structures.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-126, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1858 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1612: Submitted by Monroe Development, Inc.
requesting an approval of an alternate use (auto body shop) on CL zoned prop-
erty located at 911 North Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission granted the alternate use of an auto body shop
for Conditional Use Permit No. 1612. Negative declaration status was previously
granted.
11. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10424: Submitted by Four Sails Properties, Inc., to
establish a l-lot, 6 building subdivision on RM-1200 zoned property located at
124 North Tustin Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10424 and granted
negative declaration status at their meeting of June 19, 1978 (15-day appeal
period expires July 5, 1978, 5:00 P.M.).
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the action of the City Planning
Commission became final.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1834 AND EIR NO. 215: Submitted by the Marriott
Corporation, to permit an 18-story hotel complex on C-R zoned property located
on the south side of Convention Way, west of Harbor Boulevard.
78-870
City Hall~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~..1978~ 1:30 P.M.
· he Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-124, granted Conditional
Use Per, tit No. 1834 and certified EIR No~ 215.
Mr. Ronald Sta~k, attorney from Santa Ana, explained that he was representing
Mr. and Mrs. Extel, 743 West Eugene Place, who were concerned with the proposed
10-foot wall that was to be installed. Their home was approximately 14 feet
from where the wall was to be consructed thus causing problem~ relative to light
and air circulation. They preferred instead a 6-foot wall.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, explained that the Planning Commission
approved the 10-foot block wall, but with a 6-foot solid masonry wall along
the lot in question. After the hearing, Mr. Estel had it perforated so it
would not block the light, air and ventilation and plans were to be approved
by both the Planning Department and the City Engineer.
Mr. Stark stated it was their understanding the wall was perforated above 6-feet
up to 10-feet.
Mr. Thompson confirmed that it was a 10-foot wall perforated above 6 feet. Mr.
Stark confirmed that they wanted a 6-foot wall only.
Mr. Thompson explained that if the City Council wished to do so and the City
received something in writing from the applicant, the matter could be handled
administratively.
Councilman Kott thereupon moved that the matter be handled administratively as
recommended.
Mr. Estel explained that as he stated at the Planning Commission, not only would
air circulation in his home be completely cut off by the fence, but also it would
harm his resale value. He wanted something better and also requested that the City
C~uncil make an inspection of his property.
Mmyor Seymour explained that he had been to the property and knew where Mr. Estel's
house waB located. As he understood, a 10-foot wall was to be built, but Mr. Estel
wanted a 6-foot wall and that was what the Council was trying to accomplish.
Mr. Thompson explained that in addition to the 10-foot wall required by the Plan-
ning Commission along the southern boundary of the proposed project, there would
be a 20-foot landscaping strip adjacent to Mr. Estel's property. The Planning
Commission, in trying to work with Mr. Estel, approved a 6-foot solid wall with
a perforated wall on top to allow for lights air and ventilation as previously
explained. Mr. Thompson concluded by stating that he believed the request for
a 6-foot wall could be approved administratively.
The Mayor suggested one of two things, either a Council Member had to request the
matter be set for a public hearing or Mr. Estel could appeal the decision of the
Planning Commission. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that otherwise a 6-foot wall
could be approved administratively. The Mayor confirmed for Mr. Estel that the
wall could only be 6 feet in height and if it was more than 6 feet, he should
report that to the Council.
The Council took no action, thereby the action of the Planning Commission became
final.
78-871
CitX ~al~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3868: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3868 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3868: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTIONS
18.02.052.040 OF CHAPTER 18.02; 18.22.050.030 OF CHAPTER 18.22; 18.23.050.020
OF CHAPTER 18.23; 18.24.050.020 OF CHAPTER 18.24; 18.25.050.020 OF CHAPTER
18.25; 18.26.050.020 OF CHAPTER 18.26; 18.27.050.020 OF CHAPTER 18.27;
18.31.050.020 OF CHAPTER 18.31; 18.32.050.020 OF CHAPTER 18.32; AND
18.34.050.030 OF CHAPTER 18.34, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM.MUNICIPAL CODE
AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS IN THEIR PLACE AND STEAD, AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS
18.21.030.035 AND 18.21.050.105 TO CHAPTER 18.21; 18.22.030.035 TO CHAPTER
18.22; 18.23.030.035 TO CHAPTER 18.23; 18.24.030.035 TO CHAPTER 18.24;
18.25.030.025 TO CHAPTER 18.25; 18.26.030.035 TO CHAPTER 18.26; 18.27.030.025
TO CHAPTER 18.27; 18.31.030.025 TO CHAPTER 18.31; 18.32.030.025 TO CHAPTER
18.32; AND 18.34.030.025 TO CHAPTER 18.34, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3968 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3877: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3877 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3877: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(24), RS-HS-22,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3877 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3878: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3878 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3878: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(25), RS-HS-22,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3878 duly passed and adopted.
78-872
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3879: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3879 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3879: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(81), ML)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3879 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3880: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3880 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3880: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-59,CL)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3880 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3881: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3881 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3881: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-43, RM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3881 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3882: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3882 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3882: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-58, ML)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3882 duly passed and adopted.
78-873
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3883: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3883 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3883: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-5, CO)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1785 - REVOCATION: Councilwoman Kaywood stated
that when revocation of Mr. Joseph Conrad's Conditional Use Permit No. 1785
was approved (see minutes of June 13, 1978) no time limit was set for vacating
the property, and in the interim she had received complaints relative to excess
noise and offensive language emanating from the property.
City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that the premises were to be vacated 30 days
from the last hearing held June 13, 1978.
127: BALLOT LANGUAGE: In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, City Attorney Hopkins
stated that the ballot language for questions to be placed on the November ballot
relative to expansion of the Council and method of electing the Mayor would be
submitted in one week.
105/142: REPLACEMENT OF APPOINTEE TO CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE: Councilman Roth
explained that his appointee to the Charter Review Committee, Mr. Gaylen Compton,
would be unable to attend the next three Monday night meetings of the Committee.
He therefore removed Mr. Compton and appointed in his place Mr. Harry Knisely,
Attorney, who was on the original Charter formation committee.
130: CABLE TELEVISION: Councilman Roth stated he had received calls from people
in the Canyon area complaining of no television reception in that area and the
possibility of acquiring a cable TV. He requested that staff submit a report
relative to supplying a cable television to the City as a whole.
106: BUDGET WORK SESSIONS: Councilman Kott stated that he was disappointed in
the Budget hearing held earlier in the meeting. In his opinion, there did not
se~m to be a need or any use of going into work sessions if no cuts were to be
implemented. He indicated that he would probably not be available for those
sessions because he felt they would be a waste of time.
114: SISTER CITY PROGRAM - DELEGATION FROM MITO~ JAPAN: Mayor Seymour announced
that a delegation from Mito, Japan would be arriving in Anaheim on Sunday, July 9,
1978, and leaving on Monday evening, July 10, 1978. He explained that Fran Mauck
had recently joined the Sister City Committee and she was confident in her ability,
as well as that of the Committee, to raise money to make the Sister City Program
self-sufficient. However, with the July 9 deadline so close, the Committee was
requesting an advance of up to $1,900, to be repaid out of their fund raising
efforts~ He thereupon moved to expend $1,900 from the Council Contingency Fund
to receive the delegation from Mito, Japan arriving Sunday July 9, 1978 under
the Sister City Program, with funds to be repaid to the City by the Sister City
Committee. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated upon questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood
if the Committee did not raise the money, then the City would then absorb a part of
the $1,900. He then relayed the schedule and the activities planned for the Mito ·
delegation.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
78-874
City .Ra31~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
144: CITY REPRESENTATIVE ON ORANGE COUNTY CITIES TASK FORCE: Councilman Seymour
moved to assign City Manager Talley as representative from the City to work on
the Orange County Cities Task Force to work out County proposals relative to
implementation of Proposition 13. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
101: STELLAR PRODUCTIONS' LASER WORLD - REQUEST TO HOLD TENT SHOW: Mayor Seymour
noted that representatives were present at the previous ~eek's Council meeting
relative to the subject and in the meantime, they had spoken with Mr. Jim
Dooley, Operations Manager for Anaheim Stadium and Parking Lots, as suggested.
Stellar Productions was under the impression that an arrangement had been
finalized to use a portion of the Anaheim Stadium lot, but they were subsequently
advised to the contrary. A report had been submitted earlier in the day regarding
the matter by Mr. Dooley.
Mr. Bob Segal, General Partner of Stellar Productions, first stated that after
last week's meeting Stadium representatives gave the impression that particularly
in view of Proposition 13, the City was anxious to have them strike some sort
of arrangement.
Mayor Seymour interjected that was not the case and explained to Mr. Segal's
secretary that morning, the motivation of the City was that the show was proposed
to be held in the wrong area. The City Council was not trying to push for dollars,
they wanted the show in town, but felt the location to be inappropriate.
Mr. Segal stated that they had spoken with Mr. Dooley who relayed his concerns
as outlined in his report relative to ticket distribution, box office control,
crowd control, financial arrangements, traffic, quality of production, etc.
Mr. Segal then proceeded to answer those concerns. He further explained that
they were not interested in leasing either Anaheim Stadium or the Stadium
parking lot, but in fact, a vacant lot located on the corner of Katella (at
State College Boulevard) outside the fence of the parking lot. They had dis-
cussions with the Director of Traffic at the Police Department, Lieutenent
Gaston, and with their security force, full-time personnel and his (Gaston's)
aid there would be no traffic problem whatsoever. There was also a driveway
alongside the lot coming directly from Katella. Thus, there would be no need
to ever enter the Stadium parking lot by them or their patrons. They would
also be more than happy to deposit whatever funds would be necessary to guarantee
that the City would receive its revenue. Relative to the legal aspects, he would
defer to the City Attorney, but in essence they were discussing leasing of a
piece of land from the City with no connection to Anaheim Stadium or the parking
lot. They wanted nothing by way of service or aid and they could not understand
how they could create union problems as mentioned in Mr. Dooley's report. From
the standpoint of fire, safety, sanitation, traffic control and so forth, they
had the situation well in hand since they had vast experience in dealing with
other cities and no difficulties had been experienced throughout the United
States.
Discussion followed between the Mayor and Mr. Segal in which Mr. Segal stated
they would be happy to raise the guarantee from 3 cents a square foot to 5 cents
a square foot because it was so academic as to be immaterial. They were talking
about 10 percent of gross ticket sales and based on every projection they had
seen from other cities, the figure would be over $40,000. They were working under
time constraints and had to leave Anaheim by August 13th, thus it would be difficult
78-875
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
to move to another location and they had already invested a great deal of money
in the subject lot.
Mr. Jim Dooley stated that he tried to outline factors in his report which in
his professional Judgment dictated exactly what Mr. Segal indicated to him. The
show was said to be suitable for shopping centers and malls and although it was
probably a very fine show deserving of a good test site, he did not believe
Anaheim Stadium or its environs or the Anaheim Convention Center were built for
that purpose. In his past experience such events had a tendency of developing
problems which, in turn, reverted back to them (staff) once the event had left
the City.
Mr. Segal countered that the reference to shopping centers and malls was only one
of a number of places the show could be held, the point being they were in a posi-
tion where all they needed was two-fifths of an acre--no power, water or anything
else since they carried everything they needed from manpower to equipment.
Mr. Dooley thereupon suggested if Mr. Segal and his partners wished to utilize the
lot that possibly a Council-approved contract (letter of agreement) under their
auspices with merely a flat fee would be feasible, thereby waiving their normal
contractual procedures, and, as well, a condition that the lot be returned back
to its oiled condition.
Mr. Segal stated that they had been paying a flat rental all over the count?y
generally $5,000 for a 7-day stay. He also explained for Councilwoman Kaywood
that this was the first laser show they would be presenting, although contracts
had been let throughout the country for subsequent shows, however, they had staged
many theatrical productions in the past.
Councilman Kott moved that the subject lot be leased to Stellar Productions for
$5,000 a week with an appropriate down payment and subsequently the lot to be
rehurned to its same condition.
Before further action was taken on the motion, discussion followed between the
Mayor and Mr. Segal relative to terms. The City Attorney recommended that the
motion reflect approval in accordance with AMC Section 3.32.020 similar to the
tent show permit.
The motion as offered by Councilman Kott was modified as follows: approve the
request of Stellar Productions' Laser World to hold a tent show from June 28
through August 14, 1978, in accordance with AMC Section 3.32.020, use of unim-
proved parking lot at the Stadium bordering Katella Avenue at $5,000 a week,
minimum of 4 weeks, and 10 percent of the gross ticket sales. Councilman Seymour
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman
Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (8:35 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (12:05 A.M.)
78-876
City Hai~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 27~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
156: VOTE OF CONFIDENCE - CHIEF OF POLICE: Mayor Seymour explained that at the
Executive Session, the matter of the vote of "no confidence" of the Anaheim Police
Association (APA) for Chief of Police Harold Bastrup was discussed. He believed
it fair to state that the City Council felt very strongly that they support the
Chief and the concept that he must be the leader and commander of the Police Depart-
ment and in that concept, that a chain of command must be followed through the
Chief of Police, through the City Manager and ultimately to the City Council. In
that regard, he moved for a vote of confidence for the Chief of Police. Councilman
Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Seymour added that the Council had directed the City Manager to work with
the Chief of Police and to meet with the APA and attempt to dis cuss and have open
communication relative to what they felt their problems were and hopefully bring
them to a quick resolution.
112: CITY OF ANAHEIM VERSUS DIVEN GRUBERT~ PACIFIC OUTDOOR ADVERTISING: On motion
by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney was
authorized to settle the case of Diven Grubert, Pacific Outdoor Advertising
(Orange County Superior Court No. 28-22-80) for the sum of $3,000. MOTION CARRIED.
112: CITY OF ANAHEIM VERSUS MICHAEL C. JONES: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney and City Special Counsel
were authorized to negotiate settlement of the case of Michael C. Jones versus
the City of Anaheim, et al. (Orange County Superior Court Case No. 27-25-80)
for a sum not to exceed $5,000. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 12:07 A.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK