1978/09/1978-1231
.Ci.ty Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
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
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry McRae
POLICE CHIEF: Harold Bastrup
POLICE LIEUTENANT: Dale Wilcox
POLICE SERGEANT: James Stone
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: ?hillip Schwartze
CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Warren Pittman of St. Michael's Episcopal Church gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilowman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and
unanimously approved by the City Council:
"Constitution Week in Anaheim'' - September 17 through 23, 1978.
MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred for one week.
WAIyER 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 $995,807.60, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
105/156: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CRIME PREVENTION OFFICER: Request
of the Community Services Board to discuss a change in procedure for appointment
of a Community Development Block Grant Crime Prevention Officer was continued
from the meeting of September 5, 1978 to this date for a report.from the Chief
of Police.
Mr. Talley noted that the requested report ha~ been submitted and the Police
Chief is present to respond to any questions Council might have. Said report
indicates in reponse to the request from the Community Services Board that the
Chief would recommend the current procedure for selection of this officer not
be altered. The Chief of Police would seek community input in connection with
his selection, but would retain the responsibility for administrative direction
in his department.
78-1232
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ %978~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the City Council uphold the Chief's recommen-
dation to retain the selection process for Community Development Block Grant Crime
Prevention Officer as used in the past. Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that the last two officers selected in this manner
were very highly regarded and since the selection process worked so well, she
could see no reason to change it.
Councilman Seymour asked the Council to consider an amendment to the motion as
offered to allow the Police Chief to retain the responsibility of final selection
of the officer, but to also permit the Community Services Board and People for
Community Development to be involved in the process. He stated that he feels
this is important because of the difficulties recently experienced in the City.
Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that the foregoing motion be amended to in-
clude in the selection process an opportunity for input by the Community Services
Board and People for Community Development. Said motion died for lack of a second.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion made by Councilman Roth. MOTION
CARRIED.
150: ANAHEIM TENNIS CENTER - PERMIT TO DISPENSE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES: On motion
by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Council approved the
dispensing of alcoholic beverages at Anaheim Tennis Center in Boysen Park during
the Almaden Grand Masters Tennis Tournament, October 13 through 15 and its support-
ing functions on September 19, 22 and October 12, 1978, as recommended by the
Parks, Recreation and Arts Director. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA MEDICAL HEALTH PLAN~ INC. AGREEMENTS FOR HEALTH
AND DENTAL CARE: Recommendation from the Personnel Director that these amend-
ments, covering premium rate charges be authorized effective as of January 1,
1978, was submitted.
Councilman Kott questioned why these legal documents for retroactive increases
are presented for approval some eight months after the agreement was consummated.
He stated that he was not aware of any change in the rates, and it would appear
to him that a unilateral deal has been made without knowledge or consent of the
City Council.
Both Mr. McRae and Mr. Talley assured Councilman Kott that the revised rates
presented in these amendments are those which were accepted and agreed upon by
the City staff, bargaining units and Council in October of 1977 in connection
with the 3-year labor agreements. However, the actual legal documents to accomplish
the rate changes were not presented to the Council until this date because of
difficulties in obtaining these from the California Medical Group Health Plan.
Because of this, premiums have been paid at the old rate, but sufficient funds
have been set aside to pay the carrier the difference between the old and new
rates retroactive to January 1, 1978 and they have continued to provide employee
health care services to those enrolled during the interim period.
Mr. Dick Bouchar, representative of the California Medical Health Plan, Inc.,
summarized his firms difficulties in obtaining an approved new contract form
78-1233
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
from the State of California and further that the delay was due to the fact that
his firm will shortly be taken over by the Insurance Company of North America
and because of unprecedented gross levels. He assured the Council Members that
the delay was caused by his company and not by actions of the City Personnel
Department and apologized for any inconvenience it might have caused.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 78R-599 and 75R-600 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-599: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT OF APRIL 19, 1977, FOR EMPLOYEE DENTAL
CARE BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND CALIFORNIA MEDICAL GROUP HEALTH PLAN,
INC. AND AUTHORIZING THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-600: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT OF APRIL 19, 1977, FOR EMPLOYEE MEDICAL
CARE BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND CALIFORNIA MEDICAL GROUP HEALTH PLAN,
INC. AND AUTHORIZING THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-599 and 78R-600 duly passed and adopted.
153: CREATION OF NEW JOB CLASS - ZONING ENFORCEMENT SPECIALIST: Memorandum from
the Personnel Director recommending creation of a Zoning Enforcement Special
classification was submitted.
In response to Mayor Seymour, Mr. McRae advised that the position to be deleted,
Mechanical Plan Check Engineer, was at the Journeyman Engineering level, whereas
the new position would pay 15 to 20 percent below that pay scale. In addition,
it was noted that the position of Mechanical Plan Check Engineer, While it was
approved for the 1978-79 Resource Allocation Plan, for the purpose of providing
planning assistance related to energy legislation, has never been filled and
these responsibilities will be handled in a different manner so that there
should be no loss of service level to the public as the result of the elimina-
tion of this one position.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-601 for adoption. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-601: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-703 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES
REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GENERAL CITY EMPLOYEES
UNIT, AND CREATING A NEW JOB CLASS. (Zoning Enforcement Specialist)
78-1234
Ci.ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 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-601 duly passed and adopted.
173: BUS SHELTER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM: Report containing three recommended
alternatives relative to the culmination of the Bus Shelter Demonstration Program,
was submitted by the Planning Department, together with some examples of public
responses to the demonstration models erected by Bustop Shelters of California
and Sheltertop.
Mr. Phil Schwartze advised that the Planning Department did send out a number
of letters to people living and operating businesses in and around the demonstra-
tion bus shelters, and copies of the responses have been given to the Council.
He reported that the responses were generally.favorable. In addition, he
described the survey they mailed to all companies which have solicited consider-
ation for Anaheim's bus shelter market, and responses were compiled for Council
information.
The Mayor recognized Mr. Rudy Montejano, representing Convenience and Safety Corpor-
ation, who requested that the Council consider following Alternative 3, as indicated
in the staff report, which would extend the study period to October 13, 1978 to
allow staff further time for investigation, which would, in turn, allow his firm
an opportunity to make a formal presentation to participate in this program. Addi-
tionally, he urged that the City develop high standards for the shelter program
to make sure that the firms chosen to participate would be financially capable
of continuing the program. He explained that his company did not become aware
of this demonstration program until mid-July of this year and would welcome the
opportunity to make a formal presentation and be considered as a potential
provider.
Mr. Fred Droz, representing Bustop Shelters of California, which firm has developed
the demonstration model at 1614 West Katella, introduced his company's President,
Charles Flynn, who, in turn, responded to Council questions.
Mr. Herb Eggett, Chairman of the Orange County Senior Citizens' Transportation
Committee, spoke in favor of installation of a Bus Shelter Program throughout
the City for the convenience and safety of seniors and other Anaheim residents.
He did not care to make any recommendation as to the Council's choice of the
firm to be the provider.
Mr. John Vidal stated he has been involved in the transportation aspect of the
TLC Program and explained that the largest problem with seniors using the Orange
County Transit District services is the inconvenience and safety problems associ-
ated with seniors standing at bus stops. He voiced the opinion that the bus shel-
ters are sorely needed and that the provision of a bench alone is not sufficient;
an enclosure of some sort is needed. Mr. Vidal commented that the bus stop demon-
stration model is serving the function, is very well lit and appears to have the
proper maintenance. Therefore, he could see no reason why the City should not
accept their proposal.
78-1235
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
At the conclusion of public discussion and comments on the issue, Councilman
Roth stated that while he appreciates the position of the new company who now
wished the City to defer a decision, he feels that adequate notice was given
in the press about the demonstration program to allow 6 firms to construct
shelters; since 2 firms have accepted and acted in good faith, having presented
their demonstration models, he was prepared to support a decision awarding an
agreement to one of them at this time.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the City Attorney's Office to prepare
a contractual agreement with Bustop Shelters of California to erect bus shelters
in the City of Anaheim. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood commented that she too was very pleased
with the demonstration model provided by the Bustop Shelters firm, as well.~as with
the public reaction to it. She noted that if the Council were to extend the time
period for the program now, at the end of that demonstration period, there would
then be more new companies seeking to be considered and desiring further time
extensions. She also felt there was ample advertisement about the program and
the time had come to move forward with it.
Mayor Seymour briefly commented that he believed the bus shelters are in violation
with the City's sign ordinance and that by allowing them, the City is creating a
double-standard. Conversely however, he has come to the conclusion that there is
a great citizen demand for bus shelters of some kind and for that reason he would
be supportive of a bus shelter program. Further, he felt the motion to prepare a
contract at this time is a rush to judgment, and he would prefer that the Council
delay this decision until October 13, 1978, as mentioned in Alternative 3 of the
Planning Department report, to provide staff sufficient time to review additional
proposals.
Councilwoman Kaywood inquired whether the Mayor intended to have additional firms
interested in participation in this program build demonstration models, since in
her opinion all the pictures in the world would not adequately describe the actual
product, as well as a demonstration model.
Councilman Seymour did not intend to require the demonstration models be built,
but would prefer that the Council allow the additional time period for staff to
complete a total survey prior to making a final decision.
Councilman Overholt shared this opinion and indicated he would also like the
opportunity to review the bus shelter now standing in Fullerton. He did not
agree, however, with that portion of Alternative 3 in the staff report which
excluded Bustop and Sheltertop from consideration.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carCy by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood and Roth
Overholt, Kott and Seymour
None
78-1236
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the City Council direct Planning staff to
administer a survey of other bus shelter companies interested in servicing Anaheim's
bus shelter market with responses to be presented to the City Council on October 13,
1978; further with the proviso that Bustop and Sheltertop proposals be included in
this consideration. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Roth
voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
115: ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER ROOFING BOND: Report dated September 12, 1978, from
the Engineering Division of Public Works wa~ submitted indicating that attempts to
solicit a bond for 5-year coverage on the Civic Center roof have, to date, been
unsuccessful.
Councilman Kott voiced the opinion that the subject report should not be ordered
received and filed as this would not support his ~contention that if the people who
are supposed to be on the job, i.e., the architect, contractor, construction super-
intendent, building inspector, are doing their jobs, then the City would not require
a bond.
Mr. Talley advised that the staff report does not recommend anything, it just reports
the fact that despite several attempts, staff has not been able to obtain the bond-
ing requested by the Council at their May 30, 1978 meeting. A summary of views of
the industry on bonding which supports the contention that there is no one interested
in providing such coverage, and therefore, the City staff could not bring back a
bond.
MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the
report dated September 12, 1978, on the Anaheim Civic Center Roofing Bond was
ordered received and filed. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would prefer to return to the original staff
recommendation that the Council hire a roofing inspector for the specific job of
see%ng that the roof is installed properly. She added that for the cost of slightly
over $5,000, the City could be assured that the roof is applied properly and would
also have an expert witness in the event that there is a problem with the roof,
which in her opinion, would be a very wise precaution.
There was brief discussion as to whether or not the roofing inspection services
would still be available at the previously offered price of $5,385, and Mr. Maddox
advised that this sum was also to cover inspection of the waterproofing, of which
a portion had already been completed.
Mayor Seymour indicated he would not be willing to authorize such agreement if
there was an increase in the original price offered.
Councilman Overholt inquired whether an additional inspection would be made by
this individual prior to the expiration of the 2-year warranty period and was
assured that this would be accomplished as a part of the roofing inspection
contract.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that a roofing inspector be hired at a cost
not to exceed $5,385. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
78-1237
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott reiterated that he has been opposed to this proposal from the
beginning and is still opposed to it on the basis that he feels among the archi-
tects, contractor, City Building Inspector, et al, there should be sufficient
direction and responsibility, if these individuals are performing their jobs, to
see that the roof is properly constructed according to specifications.
Mayor Seymour explained that he is supporting the motion to hire the roofing
inspector because he personally, as one elected official, doesn't know how else
to insure that the City does get the type of roofing job done which will hold up,
and also have an expert witness to call upon should the matter have to be taken
to court. He acknowledged that he felt a bond would be the better route to go,
but that the staff has gone out and tried to obtain these on several occasions
to no avail. Therefore, rather than face the responsibility of having a possible
leakage which could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if this is the best
assurance the City can get, then he is forced to go with it.
The Mayor called for the vote on the foregoing motion. Councilman Kott voted
"No". MOTION CARRIED.
160: WAIVER OF ADVERTISING REQUIREMENT - SEALED BIDS FOR USED VEHICLES: On
motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council
authorized the waiver of the advertising requirement for solicitation of sealed
bids for needed used vehicles. MOTION CARRIED.
123/101: AMENDMENT TO SRI INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT: Councilman Kott questioned
the recommendation forwarded by the Finance Director to amend the agreement pre-
viously made with Stanford Research, Inc., to authorize an additional amount, not
to exceed $20,000, including all expenses, for assistance SRI provided in evaluating
proposals from the Los Angeles Rams.
Mr. Talley explained that this amendment is necessary because Item No. 5, which was
included in the original SRI Letter Agreement, was inadvertently omitted, and the
amendment places it back into the scope of work and provides for payment.
In further response to Councilman Kott's question regarding the City receiving
interest, Mr. Talley explained that all costs, including administrative, will
be recovered when the bonds for Stadium improvements are sold; that the contractee
will bill the City when the work is performed, and the City will make the payments
in accordance with the agreement.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-602 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-602: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO 'AN AGREEMENT RE-
LATING TO A FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE LOS ANGELES RAMS' PROPOSAL.
(SRI International)
78-1238
~i.ty Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
0verholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-602 duly passed and adopted.
116: PUBLIC STATEMENT REGARDING WILLIAM O. TALLEY~ CITY MANAGER: Mayor Seymour
issued a public statement and offered a resolution for adoption to remove the
City Manager from his office in accordance with Section 606 of the City Charter
and further, calling for his immediate suspension from duty. Mayor Seymour re-
marked that he based this statement and attendant proposed Council action solely
and entirely on the performance and attitude of Mr. Talley as Chief Administrative
Officer of the City. Mayor Seymour outlined the following charges as demonstrative
of Mr. Talley's inability to perform in the office of City Manager:
1. The medical retirement of Richard Plummer subsequent to his being fired by
the Chief of Police, which could ultimately cost the Anaheim taxpayers $140,000
and which was accomplished without consultation with the Chief of Police, City
Attorney or City Council; which act further caused the City Council to remove
from the City Manager the responsibility of granting future medical retirements.
2. The fact that the Chief of Police, who is a 25-year veteran of his department,
has stated that the present City Manager continuously undermined and eroded his
authority in carrying out his responsibility as a department head, and this has
resulted in widely recognized Police enforcement problems.
3. That Mr. Talley acted immorally and irresponsibly by directing the drafting
of his own 2-year employment contract.
4. ~ That Mr. Talley showed blatant disdain when he refused to furnish to the
Council his budget work papers prior to the passage of Proposition 13, and pro-
vided these only after some unnecessary forcefulness.
5. When the City's Risk Manager was hired, the City Manager was instructed to
insure that the job be at a level equal to a department head and although the
Charter requires ratification by the City Council for department heads, this
position was filled by the City Manager without Council ratification and further,
he was employed for a period of three weeks before the City Council was aware he
was on the payroll.
6. The conflict and concern caused in the community by a study of business license
fees which resulted in unnecessary and unwarranted numbers of people in the business
community debating the issue before a City Council who was uninformed and unprepared;
the fact that in light of the passage of Proposition 13, one of the cuts recommended
by the City Manager was closure of the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, which he (Council-
man Seymour) considered to be a punitive act, which caused a negative public reaction.
7. The City Manager deliberately prepared an unintelligible City budget document
so that 3 Council Members were forced to give temporary budget approval, and in a
separate subsequent action the City Council approved formation of a citizens' Blue
Ribbon Committee to review this document and recommend a more clear, concise and
understandable budget format.
78-1239
C__i_t~Hal. l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour concluded that in his opinion there has been no peace or harmony
among the City Council since Mr. Talley took office, and he personally did not
believe there would be, as it is Mr. Talley's method of operation to discredit
individuals and create conflict. This situation has prevented the Council from
becoming the team they should be.
Councilwoman Kaywood voiced her disagreement with everything the Mayor had said
and with the fact that he brought this matter up at this point in the meeting
rather than under Council Comments at the end.
Councilman Roth stated that there were many errors in the Mayor's statement--
pointing out specifically that neither himself nor the Manager were involved in
any conspiracy regarding the employment contract.. Further, he added that he
feels it is management's responsibility to bring forth the facts that a business
license costs more to issue than the applicant is paying for it; and that the only
way change can be brought about, is by action of the City Council. Likewise, the
recommendation on the golf course closure was a recommendation to the Council only
and he noted that it is inconceivable to him that the City could let the Anaheim
Hills Golf Course continue to operate at a total annual loss of $407,000, and he
personally asked at management meetings that the City look at perhaps a free
enterprise takeover of that golf course.
Councilman Overholt advised that he would not discuss the matter of Mr. Talley's
employment contract as it is still under investigation, however, he noted that
the District Attorney found no violation whatsoever in the matter of the alleged
Brown Act violation. He explained that when the Grand Jury investigation of the
matter is brought to a conclusion, he would issue a statement describing in detail
his knowledge of the events that resulted in the approval of a 2-year term on a
contract already existing with the City Manager. He commented that in the 6 months
of his holding a seat on the City Council, it has been his observation that the
City Manager has demonstrated skill and obvious extreme competence. While respect-
ing~the Mayor's right to disapprove of the actions of any City employee, he exhorted
his fellow Council Members to bend their shoulders to the work and challenges facing
the City.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution which was offered by Councilman
Seymour and failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kott and Seymour
Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
None
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:10 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:20 P.M.)
170: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE~ TENTATIVE TRACT
NO. 9136: The City Clerk reported that a letter dated September 13, 1978, had
been received from Mr. Pat Walla of Pacific Coast Builders advising that the
problem which created the original request for waiver from the Hillside Grading
Ordinance on Lot 16 of Tract No. 9136 had been resolved and therefore, they wished
to withdraw their request.
78-1240
City Hal.~.~ Avn. aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City
Council accepted the withdrawal of the request for waiver of the Hillside
Grading Ordinance on Tract No. 9136. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3041: Submitted by Andrew W. and Linda T. Klein,
to construct an accessory living quarter, garage and fence, with a waiver of
maximum fence height and minimum structural setback on property located at
191 Starlight Drive.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-189, granted said
variance, in part, subject to the following conditions and further reported that
the Planning Director has determined Variance No. 3041 to be categorically exempt,
Classes 3 and 5, from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report:
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
and 3; provided, however, that the proposed 2-story accessory living quarters
and garage shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from adjacent property lines.
Mr. Ron Thompson reviewed for Council that the subject variance was granted, in
part, by the Planning Commission to allow fencing of wrought iron with brick
pilaster as this would not create traffic or site distance problems. The Planning
Commission however did deny that portion of the variance pertaining to construction
of a 2-story guest house and 4-car garage at a location 6 feet 9 inches from the
north property line based on the reasoning that given the size and shape of the
property, this structure could be located elsewhere on the lot so as not to require
a variance.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or his agent wished to address the Council.
Mr. Andrew Klein, 191 Starlight Drive, applicant, advised that he personally
spoke with his immediate neighbors including the neighbor to the north who would
be most directly affected, being 65 feet removed from the existing property line,
and received no objections to his plan. In addition, he advised that this pro-
posal was unanimously accepted by the Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory
Committee. However, when he presented his plan before the Planning Commission,
they indicated they would not under any circumstances grant such a variance because
of the possibility of establishing a precedent.
Mr. Klein explained that his problem lies in the fact that there is insufficient
turn-around space for the automobile. He pointed out that he believed there is
a hardship involved because of the fact that there are 10 eucalyptus trees on
the lot and if he could remove these, then relocation of the guest house/garage
would be possible. However, the HACMAC members indicated they would much prefer
that he leave the trees standing.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Klein assured Council that he intends to
use this accessory living structure strictly as a guest house or maid's quarters
and not for rental.
In addition, Mr. Klein referred to the change in regulations for calculation of
lot size and consideration of private versus public roadway dedication, i.e., a
change from gross to net square footage which also affected his property.
78-1241
C. ity. Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone else wished to address the Council.
Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, member of HACMAC, corroborated that this proposal
had been presented to HACMAC, and they were in unanimous accord with it. She also
recalls how hard they had fought to save the trees on this particular property
prior to Mr. Klein's acquisition of it. With this plan, she felt he was attempt-
ing to preserve the trees in the best interest of the neighborhood. She noted
also that their HACMAC representative from his surrounding neighborhood had
canvassed the neighborhood and found no objections to the proposal.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Seymour closed the
public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Kott,
seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council ratified the determination of
the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Classes 3 and 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the require-
ments for an environmental impact report, and is, therefore, categorically exempt
from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-603 for adoption, reversing the findings
of the City Planning Commission and granting Variance No. 3041, in full, based on
the finding that the preservation of the trees overruled the setback requirement,
and therefore this is not intended to establish a precedent, but to insure the
conservation of these trees as part of the Scenic Corridor. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-603: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3041.
Roll Call Vote:
AYEg:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-603 duly passed and adopted.
174: AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS WITH ACE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION~ INC. AND THE
BLYSTONE COMPANY: The City Attorney presented recommendation that amendments
to two agreements between the City and contractors involving regulations estab-
lished by the Secretary of HUD be authorized, thereby adding to those agreements
the required assurances that, to the greatest extent feasible, the contractor
will provide employment and training opportunities to local, low income residents
within the project area and will work with business concerns within the area of the
project.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 78R-604 and 78R-605 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
78-1242
City Ha~l~..Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-604: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AND ACE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-605: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AND BLYSTONE COMPANY, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-604 and 78R-605 duly passed and adopted.
105: APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION: Councilman Kott nominated Mr. Gerald
Bushore to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission, term expiring June 30,
1981.
Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Mrs. Eleanor Bay to fill the vacancy on the
Planning Commission.
These nominations were seconded by Council Members Overholt and Seymour,
respectively.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, the nominations
were closed. MOTION CARRIED.
Prior to voting on the appointment of one of these individuals to the Planning
Commission, Councilwoman Kaywood spoke to the appointment of Eleanor Bay, pointing
out her involvement in the City for the past 10 years, by observing Council meet-
ings, assisting in the revision of the "Know Your City" booklet, her work with
homeowner groups. Likewise, Councilman Kott pointed out that Mr. Bushore has been
active in numerous civic activities and his experience in the real estate business
would make him knowledgeable in matters relating to Planning Commission actions.
A vote was then taken for Councilman Kott's nomination of Mr. Bushore. Council
Members Kaywood and Seymour voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that her "No" vote was made not against Mr. Bushore,
but on the basis that she felt Mrs. Bay was a better qualified candidate'for the
appointive position.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-606 for adoption, unanimously endorsing
the appointment of Gerald Bushore to the Planning Commission, term expiring June 30,
1981. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-1243
City Ha~l, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-606: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPOINTING GERALD BUSHORE TO SERVE ON THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. (Term
expiring on June 30, 1981)
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-606 duly passed and adopted.
105: APPOINTMENT TO VACANCY ON HACMAC: It was pointed out that there is still
a vacancy on HACMAC, and current members of this 'group have indicated they would
like the opportunity to provide input to the Council regarding the appointment.
Councilman Seymour moved that appointment to the HACMAC vacancy be continued to
the Council Meeting of October 3, 1978. Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
It was also pointed out that the Council had received a letter indicating interest
in serving on the HACMAC from Timothy J. Miller, a canyon resident, and also that
a recommendation from Supervisor Clark was received recommending appointment of
Mr. John Dedishew.
160: AWARD OF BID - REPAINTING ANAHEIM STADIUM HIGH STRUCTURAL STEEL - BID NO.
3446: (Account No. 61-299-7107-09930) On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded
by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council accepted the bid submitted by Wilson &
Hampton in the amount of $24,545, including tax, in accordance with the recommen-
dation submitted by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated September 11,
1978. MOTION CARRIED.
160i PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - ONE POWER TRANSFORMER AND ONE LOT SPARE PARTS -
BID NO. 3449: (Account No. 55-665-7121-7150) On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council accepted the bid proposal of
RTE/ASEA for one power transformer and one lot spare parts in the amount of
$202,402.76, including tax, and authorized purchase from that firm in accordance
with the recommendation of the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated September 13,
1978. MOTION CARRIED.
169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - NOHL RANCH ROAD STREET !MPROVEMENT~ PHASE I: (Account
No. 13-792-6325-2130) In accordance with the recommendation submitted by the
City Engineer, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-607 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-607: 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: NOHL RANCH ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT, ANAHEIM HILLS ROAD TO
760' W/O IMPERIAL HIGHWAY - PHASE I, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, A.H.F.P. NOS. 908
& 909, ACCOUNT NO. 13-792-6325-2130. (Sully-Miller Contracting Company, $396,525.60)
78-1244
City Ha.lip. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 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-607 duly passed and adopted.
124: REJECTION OF BIDS AND CONSTRUCTION BY FORCE ACCOUNT - CONVENTION CENTER
EAST PARKING LOT TICKET BOOTHS: (Account No. 64-307-7107-9120) In accordance
with the recommendation submitted by the City Engineer, Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 78R-608 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-608: A RESOLUTION OF THE cITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE BID RECEIVED FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER EAST
PARKING LOT TICKET BOOTHS BE REJECTED, THAT SAID JOB NOT BE READVERTISED AND
THAT SAID IMPROVEMENT BE PERFORMED BY CITY FORCES.
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-608 duly passed and adopted.
108: HEARING - BINGO ORDINANCE: To consider proposed amendments to Chapter
7.34 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the conduct of bingo games.
The City Clerk submitted names of individuals who had requested an opportunity
to speak on this matter, namely Dr. Harry Vulkowitz and Mr. John Morrell, both
of whom, upon learning that this was a hearing and that everyone would have an
opportunity to present their views, stated they would take their turn along
with all of the other people following the City's presentation.
The City Attorney summarized his memorandum recommending the proposed amendments,
outlining that, if adopted, the following changes would be made to the existing
ordinance:
1. Require applicants to have been in existence and operating within the City
of Anaheim for a minimum period of one year prior to the date of the bingo
application.
2. Require license fee of fifty dollars to be paid semi-annually instead of
annually.
3. Require licensee to report any changes in its officers from those listed on
application to the City License Collector.
4. Require licensee to designate a bingo manager who must be present and in
charge of all bingo games conducted.
78-1245
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
5. Require licensee to keep a record of the names, addresses and telephone numbers
of all persons winning $100.O0 or more from any single bingo game and to make such
information available to the City.
6. Require all disbursements of funds to be by consecutively numbered checks.
7. Require staff members to wear identification badges or insignias.
8. Limit conduct of bingo games on any individual premises to not more than
__day(s) per week and six hours of said day, regardless of the number of
licensees utilizing the premises.
9. Limit conduct of bingo games by each licensee to not more than
per week and six hours of said day.
day(s)
He concluded that Items 2 and 9 would become applicable to existing licensees
upon expiration of their current license, the other changes would be applicable
to all licensees 30 days following adoption of the ordinance. Further, on Items
8 and 9, the City Council would determine the number of days.
Lieutenant Dale Wilcox of the Anaheim Police Department was requested to present
his viewpoint and he noted that the Police Department recommends the Council limit
the bingo games to one day per week for each licensee. He summarized the results
of a survey of other cities in the County indicating the number of days they permit
bingo which revealed that 8 cities allow one game per week; 6 cities do not allow
any bingo at all; two games per week is permitted in one city; and three games per
week in another, which is currently, considering revising that three down to one
game per week.
The following is a list of individuals who spoke regarding the proposed amendments
to the bingo ordinance and their position:
1. Mr. Lawrence Speilman, 2125 Hiawatha (works at St. Justin Martyr bingo), felt
that one day per week and 3 hours per game maximum only should be allowed.
2. Jean Stewart, Minister of Unity Church, 1600 West Broadway, did not feel the
Council should place any restriction on the number of days bingo could be played
as it serves a need, but if a limitation is placed, she felt 3 days per week would
be the minimum number acceptable.
3. Dr. Harry Vulkowitz, Minister of the Center for Universal Awareness, 3168 West
Lincoln Avenue, did not agree with changing the permitted number of games weekly
from 5 to 1, especially since there have not been any problems. He was of the
opinion that the City should retain the ordinance permitting bingo 5 days' per
week.
4. Trudy A. Dachman, representing Widows Anonymous, 633 North Euclid, explained
that her organization is using funds raised through bingo games for the rehabili-
tation of widowed women attempting to adjust to single status. Currently they
conduct only one bingo game per week, but would like to expand. She voiced the
opinion that bingo should be allowed five days per week.
78-1246
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
5. Larry C. Anderson, 16168 Beach Boulevard, Suite 160,.Huntington Beach, attorney
representing Colonial Manor Halfway House, Inc., advised of a meeting held between
8 of the bingo licensees as follows: The Velvet Knights, National Association of
Senior Citizens, The Good Life Church, The Church of Universal Self-Awareness,
Colonial Manor Halfway House, Inc., Kingsmen Drum and Bugle Corp., Hope House
Corporation, and Widows Anonymous. He advised that this group met for the first
time in an endeavor to function as a committee which could provide input and which
would allow for regulation of the bingo community by the bingo community itself.
There are subsequent meetings scheduled after which this group will attempt to
make suggestions directly to the Council regarding bingo limitations. Mr. Anderson
cited that the groups licensed by the City to conduct bingo games all had to qualify
under the description in the law as charitable, non-profit organizations and the
limitation of days or number of hours of play will limit their ability to bring
funds and consequently limit the amount of help they can provide to whatever chari-
table cause in which they are active.
Mr. Anderson urged that the Council continue the hearing for a period of 90 days
at which time the group of bingo licensees he previously described would present
written proposals as to the modification of the ordinance in question.
6. Mr. John Morrell, 471 South Brookhurst, representing the National Association
for Senior Citizens, stated that 70 percent of the people of California voted for
the legalization of bingo which he feels is a mandate from the public indicating
that they want to be able to play. He explained that his association is prepared
to operate 5 days a week and to give the money so earned back to good senior
citizen causes. He spoke in favor of the organization of bingo operators suggested
by Mr. Anderson. He advised that his organization could not operate without fund
raising by bingo 5 days a week.
7. Mr. Frank Rose, 322 New Avenue, enumerated the facilities for former alcoholics
and the drug rehabilitation-detoxification center run by his organization, whose
collective budget amounts to at least $1 million. He explained that if bingo is
shut down to one day per week, they will be unable to raise the funds necessary to
keep these centers open and would have to discontinue the treatment currently in
progress for about 100 clients. He added that one of the areas the group to be
formed by bingo licensees would address, would be the establishment of a uniform
bookkeeping system where there would be an audit trail for the various funds.
However, they need 90 days to come up with such an accounting system.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Rose explained that prior to bingo being
permissible, his agency was funded through contracts with the County of Orange and
raised funds by telephone solicitation. They have, since the advent of bingo, been
able to expand their operation to raise their standards somewhat.
8. Mr. Frank Black, 9121 Amity Street, San Bernardino, Director' for Hope House,
which is funded by revenue sharing monies, advised that the goal of his organization
is self-sufficiency in that they do not believe the taxpayers or property owners
should be paying for their recovery. They wished to pay their own way. However,
he emphasized that they still need some help in fund-raising and doubt that they
could succeed without the bingo games.
78-1247
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
9. Mr. Henry Lucky of the Anaheim VFW, 805 East Sycamore Street, Chairman of
the Bingo Committee, related that his organization is limited by the size of their
hall which can hold only 144 people. He felt any regulations should take into
consideration the smaller organizations, as well as the large ones.
Jean Stewart questioned why the 90-day postponement. She felt the Council had
done a good job in outlining the changes in the ordinance and had heard public
input to the fact that they wish to play 5 days per week. Therefore, she was of
the opinion that the amendments to the ordinance should be enacted and 5 days per
week of bingo be permitted.
10. Mr. James R. Dolan, 2477 West Lincoln, advised the Council that he is 79 years
old, lives alone and tires of watching TV by himself. He explained that he started
attending bingo games, has met many nice people and enjoys the socializing very
much. He voiced the opinion that bingo should be open and available, especially
for the elderly, on a daily basis and explained that he did not feel this to be a
form of gambling.
11. Helen Jansens, Del Este Mobile Home Park, 1241 North East Street, explained
that the seniors in her mobile home park enjoy playing bingo very much, but they
conduct only very small games with 20 to 25 people and consequently the new $100
annual fee required in an amendment to the ordinance would be beyond their means
as they do not take that much in for several months.
12. Mr. Arthur Lewis, 2025 North Broadway, Santa Ana, Manager of a recovery homes
for alcoholics, advised that he could see nothing but good coming from the funds
derived from bingo. He explained that his organization now has 100 people off the
street and if bingo were allowed 7 days per week, with that extra money they could
treat that many more.
13. Mr. Ronald White, client at Hope House, explained that he is in the drug
rehabilitation program and is attempting to clean up his life after 10 to 15 years
of drinking and using drugs.
Mayor Seymour closed the public discussion of the meeting.
Lieutenant Wilcox summarized that the Anaheim Police Department has no intention
to have bingo cease and desist; rather they are seeking to resolve some of
the complaints they have received since bingo was implemented, one being that
the smaller games that play once per week find they have difficulty competing
for players with the larger organizations running games 5 times per week, which
have more funds for larger prizes. By placing a restriction on the number of
days per week bingo can be played, it is believed, would give everyone an equal
opportunity. He pointed out that it is interesting that the City of Anaheim has
21 bingo licensees and 13 of these organizations play once per w~ek, however of
the 5 organizations which play 5 days per week, 3 came into Anaheim after bingo
was legalized.
Lieutenant Wilcox outlined some of the other problems which the Police Department
suspects exists, but is not able to investigate as they do not have sufficient
manpower, such as payment of people working at the bingo games; people receiving
receipts for donations to charities which they did not contribute; prizes being
awarded to the same people; false advertising; and skimming of funds. He concluded
that the Police Department does not wish to stop bingo, but they do feel if it is
going to be permitted, it should be conducted fairly with all qualified groups having
an opportunity.
78-1248
City H~i, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney Hopkins concurred with Lieutenant Wilcox's statement, that the in-
tent is to improve the existing ordinance to assure that bingo is conducted fairly
and everyone has a chance to participate.
Mr. Larry Anderson, Attorney for Colonial Manor, requested that the Mayor reopen
the hearing to allow response to Lieutenant Wilcox's statements, which Mayor
Seymour declined to do on the basis that ample time had been allowed all members
of the public who wished to speak.
During Council discussion of the issue, Councilman Roth pointed out that if the
Council were to curtail bingo operations and allow the various groups to select
the days on which they were to play, there would most likely still be a bingo
game available every day of the week.
Mayor Seymour voiced the opinion that restrictions on the number of times per
week a group may play would not accomplish the objective and that there are too
many loopholes, i.e., an organization such as the Catholic Church which has loca-
tions throughout the City would be allowed to play 5 nights per week as separate
organizations. He was of the opinion that attempts to restrict numbers of games
on any one premise would have the opposite of the desired effect by causing a
proliferation of bingo operations.
Sergeant Stone of the Anaheim Police Department stated that hopefully the require-
ment that the group be housed at the location where bingo is to be played would
cut down on such multiple activities in that they would have to pay rent or would
have some expenses at each location. He also noted that there would be less money
overall available for manipulation.
Chief Bastrup explained that the ordinance under discussion contains many provisions
to cover concerns that he and others share, that the City of Anaheim not become
"the bingo capital of the world." He stated that there are organizations coming
to Anaheim which were not located here before, and they are locating here because
of the bingo ordinance, and he predicted these activities will expand and continue
to expand until the City has major operations of bingo. Although the Police
Department is not against bingo or the charities which benefit from it, they cer-
tainly want some checks and balances in the ordinance to assure that the dollars
taken in are spent as outlined by the law. He reiterated that the Police Department
does not wish to remove the privilege of bingo from such groups as the VFW, the
mobile home parks, etc., but sees the need to control larger organizations which
continue to grow, and there is no real accountability as to whether or not persons
are workers or volunteers, whether or not all of the funds taken in are properly
expended and accounted for.
MOTION: Mayor Seymour concurred that the City ordinance regulating bingo does
need some revision and some tightening up, but did not agree that with restric-
tions on number of days per week bingo may be played and number of games per
premises (Item Nos. 8 and 9 as listed in the City Attorney's memorandum of
August 8, 1978) would accomplish the desired objectives. Councilman Seymour there-
fore moved that the existing ordinance be amended to include Items i through 7 as
recommended by the City Attorney in his memorandum dated August 8, 1978, and the
matter be reviewed again within a 90-day period to allow Mr. Anderson and his group
of 8 bingo licensees an opportunity to confer and offer their recommendations on an
amendment to the ordinance as it relates to those remaining restrictions (8 and 9).
78-1249
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour reiterated that it is his opinion that bingo problems could best
be controlled through a very strong accounting audit trail and that some of the
provisions in the amended ordinance would afford that accountability.
During Council discussion of the foregoing motion, the subject of the fee for the
bingo permit itself was introduced, and Councilman Roth, noting that the imposition
of a $100 annual fee on the smaller games would be unfair, proposed that the $100
fee or less be charged if the licensee plays once per week, but any operator playing
more than two times per week be required to pay an annual fee of $500. As an alter-
native to that, Mayor Seymour suggested that a provision be added making a bingo
operation subject to audit at any time and requiring that the operator reimburse
the City for the cost of the audit.
In further discussion, Councilman Overholt pointed out that such audit provisions
would be an uncertain process which could be used as a means of harassment and
suggested instead that the current annual fee of $50 be retained, and this issue
reconsidered together with Item Nos. 8 and 9 in 90 days.
In response to Council discussion, Mr. Hopkins advised that according to the
State law on bingo, the amount of the annual license or renewal fee cannot exceed
$50.
MOTION: Following discussion, Councilman Seymour amended the foregoing motion
to include recommendations 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 as outlined in the City Attorney's
memorandum of August 8, 1978, the remaining amendments to be considered for po-
tential change in a period of 90 days following input from the bingo operators.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 15 minutes. (5:50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
pre~ent. (6:05 P.M.)
170: SLOPES WITHIN TRACT NO. 8455: Request of Mr. Zane S. Averback, Law Offices
of Samuel Goldfarb, Suite 400, 15720 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, to address the
Council was submitted, together with reports from the Planning Department, City
Attorney and the City Engineer.
Mayor Seymour advised at the outset that he has had an off and on business rela-
tionship with Westfield Development COmpany, and therefore would abstain from
discussion and/or voting on the matter. He thereupon turned the chairmanship
of the meeting over to Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood.
Mr. Averback, Attorney representing the Woodcrest Homeowners Association,· ex-
plained that there are 64 homes in this tract whose owners are required by
covenants, conditions and restrictions to maintain slopes within the tract through
a homeowners association. He explained that they have had a serious problem with
the slopes since 1975 described as follows: The developer, as a condition of his
grading permit was required to install irrigation systems and landscaping on the
slopes in accordance with Chapter 17.06 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. A bond in
the amount of $57,000 was deposited by Westfield Development Company in favor of
the City of Anaheim to insure that the landscaping and irrigation work was performed,
78-1250
C_ity Hall, _Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
however, despite repeated attempts over two and one-half years made by Westfield
Development Company to landscape approximately 176,000 square feet of slope, only
76,000 square feet will grow anything and the remaining 100,000 square feet have
not grown anything at all. They have since been notified that Westfield Develop-
ment has given up on the problem, feeling that there is no solution to the 100,000
square feet of barren slope in the project. Repeated attempts to contact Westfield
Development by his firm since June of 1978, have been unsuccessful in that they
have been unavailable for comment.
Mr. Averback explained that they do not know whether or not they have a safety
problem since gullies have developed on some slopes. However, he has had to
notify members of the Woodcrest Homeowners' Board of Directors that they may
have personal liability in the event of slope failure and they have had substan-
tial difficulty in obtaining any kind of directors' liability insurance.
As a solution, Mr. Averback stated that the homeowners' association proposes that
the City Council pull the bond outstanding in the amount of $57,000, which amount
they do not believe will rectify the problem, however might be used towards studying
the situation to ascertain what the remedy might be and to finance litigation on
behalf of the homeowners' association against Westfield Development Company.
Mr. Hans Gowa, 531 Paseo De Luna, President of the Woodcrest Homeowners' Association,
stressed that various plant materials have been attempted on these slopes, but so
far the 100,O00 square feet will not take any kind of plant life. Homeowners are
experiencing difficulties with flooding because of the lack of growth on the slopes. ~
He requested that the City Council give their support to whatever action is necessary
to revoke the bond and utilize the funds as outlined by Mr. Averback.
Mr. Peter Drew, 541 Paseo Lucero, related the difficulties experienced by the home-
owners' Board of Directors and cited the facts that they are not able to get, nor
can they afford, Errors and Omissions Insurance for the Board members, nor do they
have a budget which will allow them legal remedies or various attempts at different
types of plant life for the slopes.
MOTION: Upon being apprised by the City Attorney that the bond set forth a com-
pletion date for the landscaping and irrigation work of May 1976, Councilman Roth
moved that the City Attorney be instructed to contact Westfield Development Company
and advise them that their time period for completion of the slope landscaping for
Tract No. 8455 has expired and that the bond may be forfeited; and further, after
a reasonable length of time, if there is no response to call the bond a forfeiture.
Councilman Kott seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Seymour resumed chairmanship of the meeting.
167: TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEE REFUND - RAYMOND SPEHAR~ 5711 EAST LA PALMA:
Communication from Raymond Spehar, 913 Paloma Place, Fullerton, was submitted
requesting a partial refund of the traffic signal assessment fee paid in connec-
tion with property located at 5711 East La Palma Avenue.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council
authorized a partial refund of the traffic signal assessment fee paid, refunding
that portion paid over the current amount established by the revised formula.
Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
78-1251
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood objected, noting that if the Council establishes no moritorium
on granting of these refunds, there will be no funds left in the Traffic Signal
Account for installation of signals.
167: TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEE REFUND - JOSEPH A. BENJAMIN~ 1125 NORTH
MAGNOLIA: Co~nunication from Joseph A. Benjamin, General Partner, Magnolia
Plaza, Limited, was submitted requesting a partial refund of the traffic signal
assessment fee paid in connection with property located at 1125 North Magnolia.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council
authorized a partial refund, refunding that portion of the fee paid over the
current amount established by the revised formula. Councilwoman Kaywood voted
"No". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood voiced the same objection as to the previous motion.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-49 - CLARIFICATION OF AMENDMENT TO CONDITION. (On
the advice of the City Attorney, Councilman Kott stated he would abstain from
discussion and/or voting on this matter, using extreme caution because of the
possibility of a conflict of interest.) Mr. Floyd Farano, 2555 East Chapman
Avenue, Fullerton, Attorney for the Applicant in Reclassification No. 76-77-49,
addressed the Council, explaining that a clarification is necessary in regard
to Condition Nos. 1 and 2 of Resolution No. 77R-669 originally granting subject
reclassification, with particular reference to whether or not it was the Council's
intent to temporarily waive the dedication requirement for Newkirk Road at the
time they waived the dedication requirement for Frontera Street at the Council
meeting held July 11, 1978. He noted that his client has an application pending
before the Orange County Board of Supervisors for abandonment of Newkirk Road,
and if granted, the dedication and encroachment permit, which are conditions of
approval of Reclassification No. 76-77-49, would be moot. However, in order to
obtain building permits and proceed with construction on the project, they must
first satisfy the conditions as written in the resolution and finalize the
zoning. He advised that should the Orange County Board of Supervisors deny the
application for abandonment, then his client would fulfill the dedication require-
ment for Newkirk Road and apply for an encroachment permit.
In response to Council questions, Mr. Maddox advised that he had no objections
to the request for temporary waiver of the dedication requirement on Newkirk Road.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-609 for adoption, to clarify the
intent of the City Council in Resolution Nos. 78R-437 and 78R-560 to temporarily
waive dedication requirements for Newkirk Road, subject to the outcome of abandon-
ment proceedings for said road, currently pending before the Orange County Board
of Supervisors. Refer to Resolution Book. '
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-609: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CLARIFYING ITS INTENT IN RESOLUTION NOS. 78R-437 and 78R-560 RELATING TO RECLASSI-
FICATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 76-77-49. (dedication on Newkirk Road)
78-1252
City Hall~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
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-609 duly passed and adopted.
176: ABANDONMENT NO. 77-9A - COMPLETION OF CONDITIONS: Report from the City
Engineer was submitted advising that Condition Nos. 1 through 3 of City Council
Resolution No. 78R-141 have been met by the applicant, Anaheim Memorial Hospital,
and that it would be in order to adopt a resolution ordering the vacation and
abandonment of a portion of Hermosa Drive.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-610 for adoption. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-610: A RESOLUTION OF ~HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF HERMOSA DRIVE. (77-9A)
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-610 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: Councilman Kott moved to recess to 7:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:35 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (7:30 P.M.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL M~biBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-4 (READV.) AND VARIANCE NO. 3024:
Submitted by Harold Henry, for a change in zone from PD-C, RS-A-43,000 and CL
to RM-1200 to construct a 143-unit apartment complex on property located north
of Lincoln Avenue, east of Brookhurst.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-188, granted a
negative declaration from the requirement to prepare an EIR to subject project
and further granted Reclassification No. 78-79-4 subject to the following condi-
tions:
Ifil I I I I Ill[ Ill Ill [ ......... ]Ill]l, Illllltl~ ]]flll Ill ]] ]
78-1253
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
sum of three and one-half dollars ($3.50) per front foot along Lincoln Avenue for
street lighting purposes.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
sum of ninety-five cents (95¢) per front foot along Lincoln Avenue for tree planting
purposes.
3. That no driveway onto Lincoln Avenue shall be located closer than 25 feet to
the east property line and that the precise location shall be subject to the approval
of the City Traffic Engineer.
4. That sidewalks shall be installed along Lincoln Avenue as required by the
City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file
in the Office of the City Engineer.
5. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
6. 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.
7. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
8. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale,
lease or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject
property, shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
9. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by
the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
10. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
11. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess-
ment fee (Council Policy No. 214) amount to $36.00 per each new dwelling unit
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
12. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition
Nos. 1, 2 and 8, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights granted
by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning Commission
unless said conditions are complied with within one year from th'e date hereof, or
such further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
13. That Condition Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 10, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Variance No. 3024 was terminated by the City Planning Commission at the request
of the petitioner. Review of City Planning Commission action was requested by
Councilman Kott and public hearing scheduled this date.
78-1254
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
In addition, the public hearing on Abandonment No. 77-26A, to abandon an existing
public easement located north of Lincoln Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street was
continued from the meeting of August 22, 1978, to be considered together with
Reclassification No. 78-79-4.
Reports from the Engineering and Zoning Divisions were submitted regarding
Abandonment No. 77-26A recommending that said abandonment be unconditionally
approved. Further, it was determined that the abandonment should be classified
as categorically exempt, Class 5.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, reviewed the location of subject property
as well am the staff report to the Planning Commission. He advised that Abandon-
ment No. 77-26A has been processed through the various City departments as necessary
and is recommended for approval. He noted that it would be appropriate to proceed
with the abandonment of the public utility easements whatever the outcome of the
development proposal, inasmuch as they are no longer needed or used by the City.
Mr. Thompson explained that the Planning Commission, following considerable
discussion at two public hearings, approved the multiple-family zoning and
development proposal for this property and indicated in their resolution that
the approval was based on the fact that although a portion of the property is
currently zoned commercial, the multiple-family residential project would be
more compatible with the adjacent single-family homes. In addition, he pointed
out that they considered the fact that there would be no two-story construction
within the 150-foot area adjacent to the perimeter of the property, that two-
story construction would be confined to the central portion of the project; and
that the circulation and access as originally planned would be modified to remove
it from the adjacent single-family homes; that there are no requests for any
variances with this development plan; that a 20-foot greenbelt area would be
provided adjacent to the single-family homes on the periphery. He added that al-
though the original plan called for 143 apartment units, the plan approved by
the Planning Commission reflects 170 units and this difference is due to the fact
that the request for commercial zoning on the portion of the property next to
Lincoln Avenue has been withdrawn and the entire project proposed to be zoned
RM-1200.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent wished to address the Council.
Mr. Leonard Smith, 500 North Brookhurst Street, Agent for the Applicant,
advised that the original plan was modified to what is now being proposed
in response to objections indicated by the people who live in the area as
well as the Planning Commission to a mixture of land uses. In addition, the
variance application has been withdrawn since no variances from code are re-
quired with the revised plan. He indicated that the developer and architect
are both present to provide input.
Mr. Philip Case, Rondell Homes, Inc., 9774 West Katella Avenue, was recognized
by the Mayor. He advised that his firm has built and still owns and operates
600 rental apartment units in the City of Anaheim, none of which have been
converted to condominiums. He noted that his firm builds with the intention
of continuing ownership and management of the property. He reviewed a plot
plan of the proposed development displayed on the wall and explained that
after going through a long session with the Planning Commission and City staff,
78-1255
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
the project was redesigned to answer some of the problems the surrounding home-
owners had suggested. The strong points of the redesign project were summarized.
by Mr. Came as follows: (1) that there would be two entrances for ingress and
egress both onto Lincoln Avenue, with elimination of the left-turn pocket; (2)
that all of the apar~nent units to be built along the property line are one-story
construction whereas, if the property were utilized for RS-5000 single-family
homes these could be two-story immediately adjacent to existing single-family
homes; (3) the noise and fumes of automobile traffic on site would be mitigated
by the relocation of all on-site through traffic to the central driveway to
provide a self-contained flow of traffic buffered by buildings on all sides,
this driveway to be constructed four and one-half feet below grade; (4) a block
wall fence would be constructed around the perimeter of the property.
Mr. Case concluded that he felt this plan to be very livable as is demonstrated
by the low vacancy factor in their other projects. He attributes this to a combi-
nation of design and management. His company's intention is that this be an all-
adult property and they will maintain that policy unless or until the courts change
their minds on it.
In response to Council questions, Mr. Case responded that his firm's main business
is apar~nent construction and management, and that they do build some commercial
projects, but no condominums or single-family homes. He explained that it is his
feeling that the Planning Commission was correct in their objections to the commer-
cial use along Lincoln Avenue with a residential mix, that this situation would
cause problems; therefore they have changed their plans and are willing to proceed
with an apartment project for the entire parcel. This would be a project with a
net density of 25.4 units per gross acre (29.3 units per net acre) which he con-
sidered to be fairly low density considering the fact that they could go up to a
maximum of 36-units per acre without a variance.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the zoning, develop-
men~ proposal or abandonment.
Mrs. Judy Donley, 117 North Aladdin Drive, a resident since 1953, advised that she
has been asked to represent her neighbors in stating their opposition to the proposal
for rezoning of the property to RM-1200. She submitted a petition signed by approx-
imately 333 residents living in homes surrounding the subject property. She referred
to a map which indicates the property to be surrounded by three separate RS-7200
single-family housing developments, 148 of which homes are immediately adjacent and
are 90 percent owner-occupied. She advised that the Anaheim General Plan desig-
nates this area as low-density with a commercial strip along Lincoln Avenue and
with which she and her neighbors agree. She recalled that they never opposed the
commercial use along Lincoln Avenue. She pointed out that development of· the
property into apartments as proposed would constitute an intrusion into the low-
density area with a high concentration of people. This is known to be a major
factor in the production of crime, noise and automobile fumes. She voiced the
opinion that to allow ingress and egress onto Lincoln Avenue of traffic generated
by 150 to 200 units of apartments would be a very serious mistake in that a traffic
problem already exists on that street. In addition, she noted that it is a well
known fact that driving west on Lincoln Avenue to Gilbert, where there are apart-
ments built, shows a heavy concentration of cars parked all along the street.
78-125~
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Donley added that the placement of these apartment units adjacent to the
single-family homes would unalterably change the lifestyle of these single-family
residen~ in that there are as many as 4 patios in some cases proposed to be backed
up against one homeowner's rear yard. This forces the homeowner to live in an
apartment complex atmosphere which they chose many years ago not to do. She ad-
vised that she has seen the Rondell Homes apartment projects and agrees that they
are lovely, but still does not feel that they belong in this particular area. She
contended that the close proximity of other existing apartment projects to the north
and east of their homes is further reason that this particular project is not appro-
priate for the area.
Mrs. Donley suggested that the property owners consider as acceptable alternatives:
(1) a cul-de-sac street with some type of single,family homes; (2) condominiums
at a density of 6 to 7 units to the acre; (3) commercial limited uses or single-
story office buildings would be less desirable, but acceptable if properly buffered.
In conclusion, she requested that two standing conditions be placed on development
of the property as set forth by the neighborhood committee: (1) that a minimum
20-foot buffer zone planted with trees and shrubs be installed as required by
Planning Commission policy for visual screening and noise buffer; (2) that an 8-
foot block wall on the perimeter of the property be built before any construction
would begin.
Mrs. Karen Orton, 200 North Lindsay, advised that the homeowners on her street and
on Sunset Avenue are in complete accord with Mrs. Donley's presentation. Their
main concern would be the traffic problem in that their's is a tract of 95 homes
with only one access point in or out, that being Lindsay Street onto Lincoln Avenue
and the injection of 300 additional cars in this area would make it impossible to
get in or out of their homes. She voiced additional concern about crime problems
as were experienced last year in the Brookhurst Garden Apartments. She advised
that her neighborhood would concur that RS-7200 homes, condominiums and/or light
industry would be acceptable alternatives to the apartment proposal. They would
also request that Council consider requiring installation of an 8-foot fence and
20-foot buffer zone.
An unidentified lady in the audience brought up the possible effect on school
enrollment if these apartment units were not, indeed, all adults as proposed.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council in opposition, there
being no response, he asked for a show of hands as to those who were present to
support Mrs. Donley in her opposition to the proposal and a clear majority of those
present indicated so by raising their hands.
The Mayor offered the applicant an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mr. Case responded that if the property were developed with condominiums, and be-
cause of the economics, the density would have to be higher than the 6 to 7-units
per acre mentioned earlier, the neighbors would be dealing with a semi-apartment
type of environment which has the drawback of there being no management firm
which has money invested to oversee who comes and goes on the property and to
which they could refer their problems. He added that the apartment proposal is
really a down-zoning from the commercial currently on the property and that the
78-1257
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
apartment units would generate less traffic than a commercial use. He voiced
the opinion that Lincoln Avenue is one of the better streets equipped to handle
traffic since it is divided and pointed out that on Lincoln Avenue between
Gilbert and Magnolia, there are apartment buildings with 272, 105 and 60 units
with few traffic problems. He pointed to the redesign of the project as the
answer to the objections mentioned to car fumes and noise and noted that there
would be no cars parked nor any cars driven on or near the property line. He
stated that he would hesitate to talk about an 8-foot wall as he personally
would not want to live with a wall that high in his yard and further he, being
6 foot 3 inches tall could not see over a 6-foot wall therefore he could see no
advantage to an 8-foot wall. Relative to the problem of schools he again pointed
out that their unit breakdown shows 85 of the 170 proposed units would be one
bedroom apartments which would limit their attractiveness to families with children;
the balance are 2-bedrooms and there are 8 3-bedroom units. The 2-bedroom units
would be located near the pool and are of split-level design. In conclusion, he
noted that there is a supply-demand problem situation for low-income housing and
for apartments in general, and that this is his company's main business.
In response to Councilman Roth who referred to the objections presented about a
buffer zone, Mr. Case noted that their original design allowed for 10 to 15-foot
patios and in response to the Planning Commission requirement, they redesigned,
moved the buildings back so there is now an average of 20 feet allowed from the
property line, that area will be fenced, planted and utilized as a patio by the
tenants. He additionally explained that the monthly rental for a one-bedroom unit
is now projected to be $280 per month, and that is a break-even situation. He
described the recreational facilities to be provided as one large swimming pool,
two jacuzzi areas and semi-sunken volleyball court to be constructed two to three
feet below grade level.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the Planning staff report which indicated that
the petitioner was reminded of the Planning Commission policy that a 20-foot wide
laffdscape buffer strip is required abutting an RS-7200 zone and noted that the staff
report does state the revised plans provide an 18- to 22-foot average buffer zone
abutting the east property line and a 20- to 25-foot average on the north property
line in conformance with this policy. However, she questioned the fact that Mr.
Case planned this buffer zone area to be used as a patio by the tenants and in
particular, whether the Planning Commission was aware of this when they approved
the plan.
Mr. Thompson explained that the Planning Commission buffer zone policy has been
flexible in the past and they have approved both passive utilization of same with
berming, landscaping and walkways for instance, and in other instances they have
approved active and passive combination uses. In any event, he was certain that
the Planning Commission was aware of what they were approving in this project and
in the past they have allowed the buffer zone area to be developed in a different
manner depending on the individual circumstances. He was also certain that the
Planning Commission did review the actual plans as well as the elevations and
knew that sliding glass doors were proposed for these areas.
Councilwoman Kaywood voiced the opinion that to her, a landscaped buffer zone
means Just .that, a landscaped area not to be used for other purposes.
78-125~
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Case contended that not to use that 20-foot space would be a tremendous
toss to his tenants and he could see no difference in the tenants using it as
a patio area in that they would be 5 feet further away than a single-family
home could be built using the same space as a rear yard. However, he indicated
he would be agreeable to removing the sliding glass doors and fences if this is
what the Council wished. He pointed out that this would, in his opinion, create
an attractive playground area within which neighborhood children would congregate.
The Public hearing was closed on both the Reclassification and Abandonment.
Mayor Seymour summarized that the Council is somewhat confused in that they have
not heretofore seen such a proposed use for the required landscape buffer zone.
He stated that there is something which should be of greater concern to the Council
and that is, in his opinion, this particular project is just of too high a density
to inject into that area, which has single-family dwellings surrounding it on all
three sides. He indicated that he would have to opt for a lower density project
reflected in the City's condominium zone somewhere up to 10-units to the acre,
with appropriate buffer and wall treatment; or RS-5,000 zoned single-family de-
tached homes which may be economically impractical, with a combination of commer-
cial on the Lincoln Avenue frontage. He concluded that he would be opposed to
the project on the basis of density.
Councilman Roth stated that he would echo the Mayor's remarks regarding the
developefs good reputation in the community. He voiced the opinion however
that condominiums would bring in more people and more automobiles than adult
unit apartments. In addition, he pointed out that there are very few proposals
coming before the Council in which the developer seeks no variances. Secondly,
he stated that he thought there was a good possibility, if this property is not
developed along the lines being proposed, that it might be developed to all
commercial uses, which he personally felt would be much more detrimental to the
living environment. He recalled that several weeks ago the Council heard from
people demanding rent control and stated that he felt with the inflated home
prices seen at this time, Council has to take a serious look at allowing projects
with some higher density which could provide lower cost housing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-611 for adoption reversing the City
Planning Commission findings and denying Reclassification No. 78-79-4 without
prejudice. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-611: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE~ CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN
AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. (78-79-4, RM-1200)
Under discussion, Mayor Seymour summarized his thinking on the best potential
use for the property, that being a lower density residential use such as condo-
miniums built at 10-units to the acre or single-family detached residential
and/or a mix of commercial along Lincoln Avenue with some kind of condominium
development on the remainder of the property.
78-1259
~ity Hal.l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
At the Mayor's request, the remainder of the Council expressed what they felt
would be the most desireable use of the property so that the developer might
have some guideline as to Council's thinking on the matter.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the idea of home ownership appeals most to her
and therefore condominiums would be her choice however she emphasized that the
20-foot buffer zone is very important to maintain the privacy the residents now
enjoy in their homes and she feels this should not be violated.
Councilman Overholt shared the Mayor's concern also over the density and was of
the opinion that the solution lies in a combination of commercial with residential
of appropriate density and with a buffer zone.
During the discussion, Mr. Case proposed to remove the sliding glass doors and
fencing from the buffer zone and provide a 6-foot wall with the same density of
units.
Mrs. Donley was asked to speak to this proposal and advised that she still would
not find it acceptable as it would not resolve the density problem.
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-611 duly passed and adopted.
176: ABANDONMENT NO. 77-26A: In accordance with Resolution No. 78R-477, public
hearing was held on Abandonment No. 77-26A, submitted by Rondell Homes, Inc.,
to abandon existing public utility easements located north of Lincoln Avenue,
east of Brookhurst Street.
Following the public hearing above, it was determined to vote separately on the
abandonment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL E~RMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition
of Section 3.01, Class 5 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements
~or an environmental impact report and is~ therefore, categorically exempt from
the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott indicated that the abandonment should be denied along with the
Reclassification.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Thompson reiterated that the City has
no need for the easements in question and that it should be considered separately
from any development proposal in that abandoning of same would not determine in
any manner what development could take place On the property.
78-1260
City H.al!, .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Richard Donley, 117 North Aladdin Drive, was recognized by the Mayor and he
voiced concern as to what would become of the utility easements when abandoned,
in particular because there are anchors for poles located in the easement and
he was concerned that the City would relocate these to other peoples' property.
Mr. Case indicated that the only abandonment he was concerned with was of that
easement which ran to an old pump site.
In order to be able to look at the abandoment in relationship to the entire
development scheme, Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-612 for adoption
denying Abandonment No. 77-26A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-612: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DETERMINING THAT A REQUEST TO VACATE AND ABANDON 'CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS
BE DENIED. (Abandonment No. 77-26A, north of Lincoln Avenue, east of Brookhurst
Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kott, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-612 duly passed and adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Emeterio and Inacia Benavides for personal injuries purport-
edly sustained as a result of a drowning accident at Pearson Park swimming pool on
or about June 18, 1978.
b. Claim submitted by Barbara Sue and Richard Hanson for personal injuries
purportedly sustained by a fall at Anaheim Stadium on or about August 2, 1978.
2 CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of August 28, 1978.
b 105: Community Services Board - Minutes of August 7 and 10,'1978.
c 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of July 27, 1978.
d 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of August 8, 1978.
e 105: HACMAC - Minutes of August 29, 1978.
f 105: Community Redevelopment Committee - Minutes of August 16 & 23 and
September 6, 1978.
78-1261
~,ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
g. 175: Monthly Report - Electrical Engineering Division - June 1978.
h. 175: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No. ER78-575, notice of
proposed Tariff Change by Couthern California Edison Company.
MOTION CARRIED.
118: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY - REMILLARD: Claim submitted by Harry Remillard
for property damages purportedly resulting from an accident involving a City
vehicle was removed from the above consent calendar for discussion by Council-
man Kott who questioned the circumstances of the accident with the City vehicle.
Mr. Talley advised that from the reports on the accident, it appears that the
collision with Mr. Remillard's vehicle occurred as a result of the City vehicle
moving out of the way to prevent collision with another oncoming vehicle.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the claim submitted
by Mr. Harry Remillard for property damages resulting from an accident involving
a City-owned vehicle on or about July 17, 1978, was denied and referred to the
City's insurance carrier. MOTION CARRIED.
164: EASTRIDGE RESERVOIR (.ANAHEIM HILLS)~ CHANGE ORDER NO. 1: The recommendation
submitted by the City Engineer that Change Order No. 1, increasing the contract
amount by $3,906, International Consolidated Contractors, contractor on the
Eastridge Reservoir job, be authorized, was removed from the above consent calendar
for discussion by Councilman Kott, who questioned (1) why the contractor experienced
delays reportedly caused by the City; and (2) why or how these delays added to the
cost of the project.
Since the City Engineer wa8 not available to respond, on motion by Councilman
Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council continued decision on Change
Order No. 1 for Eastridge Reservoir to the meeting of October 3, 1978. Council-
woman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the contractor is entitled to this additional
money if the City caused the delays and these continuances only add to the overall
cost by causing further delay.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-613
through 78R-618, 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-613: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.' (La Palma East
Properties; Cal-West August #1; Hiroshi Osawa, et ux.; Rudolph Mora Hernandez,
et ux.; Mauro J. Dentino, et ux.; Armando R. Perez, et ux.; Stanley M. Gunderson,
et ux.; Kenneth J. Harris, et ux.; Dean Stephens, et ux.; John T. Schaefer, et ux.;
Sunset Ranch)
78-1262
C_ity Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
1~9: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-614: 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: FAIRMONT
BOULEVARD FLOOD DAMAGE REPAIR, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-232-6340-
FRMNT; 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 October 12, 1978 at 2:00 P.M.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-615: 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: VERMONT-LEMON
INTERCEPTOR SEWER IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-790-6325-
0070; 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 October 19, 1978 at 2:00 P.M.)
174: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-616: 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: COMMUNITY
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, PATT STREET ALLEY IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 25-793-6325-3130; 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 October 19,
1978 at 2:00 P.M.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-617: 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 STREET &
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, E/O LEWIS STREET AT THE A.T.&S.F. AND S.P.R.R. CROSSINGS,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-791-6325-1030. (Griffith Company, contractor)
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-618: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 142 AND
DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 7177 NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-613 through 78R-618, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
78-1263
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held August 28, 1978, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-5 - TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10407~ 10408~ 10409 AND
10410,. (REVISION NO. 2) AND EIR NO. 218: Submitted by Anaheim Hills, Inc., for
a change in zone from RS-A-43,000(SC) to RS-HS-10,000(SC), to establish a 152-1ot,
144-unit, subdivision on property located south of Willowick Drive, south of Nohl
Ranch Road, with a request for removal of specimen trees.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-208, granted
Reclassification No. 78-79-5; approved the tree removal plan with maximum of
12 specimen trees to be removed; and approved tentative tracts, Revisions No.
3, as follows: 10407--27 lots; 10408--35 lots; 10409--40 lots; and 10410--
38 lots; and certified EIR No. 218.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-10~ VARIANCE NO. 3036 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 1869: Submitted by Forest Lawn Cemetery Association, for a change in zone
from RM-1200 to CL (Portion A), on property located on the southwest corner of
Romneya Drive and Euclid Street, to permit a drive-through restaurant and con-
struct a 120-unit apartment complex (Portion B), with a waiver of minimum floor
area and required enclosure of carports.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-196 through PC78-198,
both inclusive, granted Reclassification No. 78-79-10, Variance No. 3036 and Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1869, respectively, and granted negative declaration status.
3. VARIANCE NO. 2875 (READVERTISED): Submitted by Louis F. and Phyllis A. Sell,
to amend conditions of approval and for waiver of permitted outdoor storage of
automobiles on CG zoned property located at 1075 North Harbor Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-199, granted
Variance No. 2875 (readvertised) and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1876: Submitted by Mennen Industries, Inc., to
permit the sale of alcoholic beverages on CL zoned property located at 2135 East
Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-200, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1876 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1877: Submitted by Sid and Charlene Crossley, to
permit a beer bar with waiver of minimum parking spaces on property located at
319 and 321 South Magnolia Avenue.
The foregoing request was withdrawn by the petitioner and the City Planning
Commission ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
78-1264
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1878: Submitted by Kenneth Kallman, to permit
the sale and repair of motorcycles on CL zoned property located at 1741 and 1743.
West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-201, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1878 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1880: Submitted by Clarence Meddock, to permit
the storage of busses with a waiver of minimum parking spaces on RS-A-43,000
zoned property located at 1829 South Mountain View Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-202, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1880 and ratified thePlanning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1881: Submitted by Allen J. and Donna L. Long,
to permit an automobile detail shop with a waiver of minimum parking spaces on
CG zoned property located at 816 North Anaheim Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-203, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1881 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1882: Submitted by Alona-Rey Homes, Inc., to
increase the display area of a billboard on CL and CH zoned property located
at 102 South Euclid Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to'Resolution No. PC78-204, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 1882 and ratifed the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1883: Submitted by Collins Limited Partnership,
to permit the sale of beer and wine in an existing restaurant on ML zoned property
located at 1514 West Broadway.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-205, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1883 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1884: Submitted by Equitex 77 Real Estate Investors,
to permit a semi-enclosed sandwich shop on ML zoned property located at 1266 East
Katella Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-206, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1884 and granted negative declaration status.
12. 150: PERALTA CANYON PARK: Request by the City of Anaheim for a determination
that the proposed park development is in compliance with the City of Anaheim General
Plan.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-207, determined
the proposed park development to be in compliance with the City's General Plan.
78-1265
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SeptEmber 19, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning
Commission became final.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3912 AND 3913: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 3912
and 3913 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
123/101: ORDINANCE NO. 3912: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A FACILITY LEASE DATED AUGUST 31,
1978, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE. SAID AMENDMENT.
ORDINANCE NO. 3913: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-58(4), 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 Nos. 3912 and 3913 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3914: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3914 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3914: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-53, RS-5,000, Tract No.
9857)
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. 3914 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 3915
and 3916 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3915: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-49, ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 3916: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(86), CR)
163: ADDITIONAL SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS AND BUSES: Councilman Overholt apprised
the remainder of the Council that he has been made aware of a number of parent
requests before the Anaheim Elementary School Board for additional crossing guards
and buses. These he understands have been forwarded to the School Safety Traffic
Committee which will make recommendation to the Council who will, in turn, have
the challenge of making a decision on these expanded services in the post Proposi-
tion 13 economy. He felt it important that the entire Council be aware of the
apparent interest in these additional services on behalf of the citizens.
78-1266
City. Ha~l~ Anahe~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
114: APPOINTMENTS TO FULLERTON COLL~GE PATRONS OF THE ARTS: Councilwoman
Kaywood called to Council's attention the letter informing them that City of
Anaheim representatives to the Fullerton College Patrons of the Arts, Violet
Wheeler and Nancy Jenkins, have completed their terms, and these individuals
can no longer serve in this capacity. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved
that Elsie Reed and Jane McCafferty be appointed, each a 2-year term to
represent the City of Anaheim on the Fullerton College Patrons of the Arts and
further, that letters of appreciation be sent to the two former representatives
thanking them for their services. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
114: MAYOR'S "HOTLINE CALLS": At the request of Councilwoman Kaywood, Mayor
Seymour directed the City Clerk to forward copies of all calls transcribed from
the Mayor's "Hotline" to all Council Members.
In addition, the Mayor reported that costs for installation of the Hotline were
approximately $200, and it requires approximately 2 hours of staff time per week
to transcribe and disperse calls to affected departments.
148: BUS TRANSPORTATION AT LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES MRRTING: In response to
Councilman Kott's concerns over the City of Anaheim providing bus service for
persons attending the California League of Cities Conference next week at the
Anaheim Convention Center, Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that this is considered
part of a convention package and is one of the expenses considered routine for the
host city.
Councilman Kott still suggested that the City Manager work out some other type of
transportation plans whereby the City of Anaheim would not bear the burden.
163: ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPERS FEES: Mayor Seymour
introduced a letter received from the law office of Parker and Covert regarding
the Orange Unified School District proposal that fees be charged developers towards
providing schools and moved that the Anaheim City Council again reaffirm their
previous position opposing such developers fees for school construction. Council-
man Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:20 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (9:45 P.M.)
112: LETTER AGREEMENT REGARDING DOUGLAS E. PATTY VERSUS CITY OF ANAHEIM' On motion
by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council authorized
the City Attorney to execute a letter agreement with Rutan & Tu6ker concerning
terms of employment in regard to a lawsuit entitled Douglas E. Patty versus City of
Anaheim (Orange County Superior Court Case No. 295928). MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council
authorized the Mayor and City Attorney to execute substitution of attorney naming
Rutan & Tucker as Attorney for the Defendants, City of Anaheim, John Seymour, Don
Roth, William Kott, E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., and Miriam Kaywood in the lawsuit
entitled Douglas E. Patty versus City of Anaheim (Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 29.5928). MOTION CARRIED.
78-1267
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
101: LETTER AGREEMENT - RUTAN & TUCKER REGARDING LOS ANGELES RAMS FOOTBALL COMPANY:
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council
authorized the City Attorney to execute a letter agreement with Rutan & Tucker re-
garding the terms of employment, drafting and final preparation of an agreement
between the City of Anaheim and the Los Angeles Rams Football Company. MOTION
CARRIED.
101: LETTER AGREEMENT WITH RUTAN & TUCKER REGARDING ANAMEIM STADIUM ASSOCIATES:
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council
authorized the City Attorney to execute a letter agreement with Rutan & Tucker
regarding terms of employment for drafting and final preparation of an agreement
between the City and Anaheim Stadium Associates. MOTION CARRIED.
112: SETTLEMENT OF MUNICIPAL COURT CASE - PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY
VERSUS CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman
Kaywood, the City Council authorized the City Attorney to settle Municipal Court
Case No. A 5266 (Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company versus City of Anaheim)
by payment to the plaintiff of a sum not to exceed $1,761.09. MOTION CARRIED.
118: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY - AMIL SHAB: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council authorized the City Attorney
to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 29-55-89 (Amil Shab versus City
of Anaheim) and Superior Court Case No. 27-39-99 (Amil Shab versus Merlin Hess
and City of Anaheim versus Amil Shab) by dismissing the City's cross-complaint
against Mr. Shah, et al, in return for Mr. Shah's dismissal of his case against
the City. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOUNRMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion.
Adjourned: 9:50 P.M.