1978/11/2178-1537
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overhol t, Kaywood, Ko tt, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Frank Lowry
RISK MANAGER: Jack Love
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norm Priest
PARK, RECREATION AND ARTS DIRECTOR: James Ruth
STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER-GOLF DIRECTOR: Tom Liegler
ASSISTANT UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Ed Alario
DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Tug Tamaru
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalah ti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
MOMENT OF SILENCE: In lieu of an Invocation, a moment of silence was observed.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and
approved by the City Council:
"Lungs for Life Week" - December 3 through 9, 1978,
with December 7, 1978 as "Breathe Easy Day".
The proclamation was accepted by Mr. Tim Geddes.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
minutes of the regular meetings held July 25, 1978 and August 1, 1978, and
adjourned regular meeting held July 31, 1978, were approved with corrections
to the minutes of July 25, 1978, as follows: Page 78-959, 8th paragraph,
"...who stated Council could not force Councilman Kott to provide the 14-page
excerpt,..." and Page 78-976, 5th paragraph, "Noting a continuance would allow
time, Mayor Seymour, apologized, thinking today was the deadline." Councilman
Kott abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth 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. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,082,144.33, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
78-1538
C~_j~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
160: CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Kott,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the following actions were authorized as recommended
by the Purchasing Agent:
a. Bid No. 3478 - authorizing the purchase of seventeen three-phase Padmount
Transformers -Westinghouse Electric Corporation, E1 Monte, $14,805.02 and
General Electric Company, E1 Monte, $36,792.60.
b. Bid No. 3486 - authorizing the purchase of sixteen 6" Detector Check Valves -
Howard Supply Company, Long Beach, $10,303.20.
c. Bid No. 3479 - authorizing the purchase of twelve vacuum circuit breakers -
continue award to November 28, 1978.
MOTION CARRIED.
164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - MARTELLA LANE-OWENS DRIVE SEWER IMPROVEMENT: (Account
No. 11-790-6325-0080) Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-740 for adoption,
award a contract as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-740: 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: MARTELLA LANE - OWENS DRIVE SEWER IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-0080. (Frost Constructors, $102,610)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Rotb and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-740 duly passed and adopted.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - FOURTEEN USED PASSENGER VEHICLES BY NEGOTIATION:
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Purchasing
Agent was authorized to purchase, through negotiations, fourteen late model used
passenger vehicles at a total maximum price of $70,000, including tax, as recom-
mended in memorandum dated November 14, 1978, from the Purchasing Agent. MOTION
CARRIED.
144: A.H.F.P. NO. 846 - MEATS AVENUE: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No.
78R-741 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated November 16, 1978, from
the City Engineer approving a revised Administrative Agreement for A.H.F.P. No.
846. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-1539
City ~all~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-741: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND THE COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR PROJECT NO. 846 OF THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING
PROGRAM AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT, AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-573.
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-741 duly passed and adopted.
123: HOUSING REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM WITH KEYSTONE SAVINGS: Mayor Seymour
stated that since he was the lessee and renting space from Keystone Savings and
Loan, he would abstain from voting on the subject matter.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-742 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated November 14, 1978, from the Community Development Department.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-742: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH KEYSTONE SAVINGS AND
LOAN ASSOCIATION AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
None
Kott and Seymour
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-742 duly passed and adopted.
180: SEARCH FOR BROKER OF RECORD - SELECTION OF CONSULTANT: City Manager Talley
briefed the Council on the report dated November 15, 1978, from the Risk Manager
relative to broker selection proposals from selected consultants. Two proposals
were received as submitted by (1) Thomas J. Hammond & Company of Los Angeles with
an estimated cost of $12,000 and, (2) Dr. Nestor Roos of the University of Arizona
at an estimated cost of $5,000. Staff did not make a recommendation as to a choice
of either consultant.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to proceed with the selection of a consultant to
assist the City in a search for a Broker of Record, with the choice being Dr. Nestor
Roos, considering the estimated $5,000 cost of his proposal. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the original estimate of
Warren, McVeigh & Griffin was $4,000, thus making that the lowest. Although she
favored the $12,000 proposal, Dr. Roos' proposal was more favorable considering
the lower cost.
78-1540
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
In answer to questioning by the Council, Mr. Talley stated that, although he did
not have a recommendation, his preference would be the Hammond proposal since it
was a large company with more experience and based in Los Angeles. As well, con-
sidering the annual premiums on the City's insurance exceeding hundreds of thousands
of dollars, the amount spent for a consultant might not be that significant. He
suggested that the Council possibly interview the two consultants.
Councilman Roth stated the reason he made the motion was the memorandum indicated
to him that either consultant would be acceptable to the City or they would not
have been suggested. Accordingly, the next consideration was $12,000 versus $5,000.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood relative to his recommendation, Mr. Jack Love,
Risk Manager, stated that he had no recommendation, but gathered from discussing
the matter informally with both gentlemen, that they had little experience in the
type of project involved; however, they were both qualified. Mr. Hammond indicated
his quotation was an estimate and on the high side because he had little basis for
determining what the total cost would be. Dr. Roos also believed it was difficult
to estimate the final cost because of the demands the City might place upon him in
terms of the number of brokers to be interviewed.
Councilman Overholt stated he was surprised that only two viable proposals were
received from the number solicited.
Mr. Love responded that he invited all of those within the geographical area of
Southern California and Arizona to submit proposals. Of the two firms declining
to submit bids, one declined because of the limited potential remuneration and the
other because of the City's recent decision to retain its current broker and the
conditions under which that selection was made. He also explained for Council-
woman Kaywood that it was conceivable that the $5,000 figure could rise (Roos) and
the $12,000 figure could decrease (Hammond).
Councilman Roth thereupon amended his motion approving Dr. Roos, but with the cost
not to exceed $5,000. Councilman Overholt accepted the amendment.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: 1978-79 MAN IN WASHINGTON AGREEMENT: Both City Manager Talley and Park,
Recreation and Arts Director James Ruth, clarified the following relative to the
subject program pursuant to questions posed by the Council: The total cost of
the program decreased for the previous year~ but because there were now only five
cities in the Consortium, instead of six, each city's share increased slightly for
the current year. Mr. Bill Morgan was the designated representative in the agreement
by the National Center for Municipal Development, Inc., which was the corporation
furnishing the Man in Washington. Mr. Morgan would not be assigned to other cities,
other than those in the Consortium.
Councilman Roth emphasized he would have opposed the program if Mr. Morgan was not
going to be the person representing the Consortium Cities because he had done an
outstanding job in the past. The City's representatives in Washington indicated
that Mr. Morgan was very much in demand. He further stated that if Mr. Morgan
was not going to handle the affairs of Anaheim, he would no longer favor the
program.
78-1541
City Hall, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-743 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated November 7, 1978, from the Parks, Recreation and the Arts
Department. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-743: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF ANAHEIM,
COSTA MESA, FULLERTON, GARDEN GROVE AND SANTA ANA AND THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR
MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT, INC. PERTAINING TO THE JOINT EMPLOYMENT OF A LEGISLATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-743 duly passed and adopted.
114/175: AMENDMENT OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 304 RELATING TO UTILITY RECORDS:
City Manager Talley briefed the Council on a memorandum dated November 16, 1978
from the Utilities Director recommending that Council Policy No. 304 be modified.
MOTION: Councilman Kott thereupon moved to modify Council Policy No. 304, as
recommended with the inclusion, "This change in policy to be applied to Anaheim
Disposal and any other services of a similar nature that would require it to en-
hance the billing procedures." Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Ed Alario, Assistant
Utilities Director, if there was any other company who would need access to
those records and also, if they would have any problem in allowing Anaheim
Disposal Company to have access.
Mr. Alario stated that they would have no problem in allowing access to Anaheim
Disposal if Council was in agreement. They would also work with Mr. Taormina
of Anaheim Disposal as to the terminals he would need. Anaheim Disposal did the
billing prior to the last contract, but now the Utilities did that billing and
thus had all the information in the computer. In order for Mr. Taormina to run
his business, it was necessary for him to have that information.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized her concern was that she did not want the infor-
mation to be divulged to anyone not entitled to it and the motion, as it now
stood, was open-ended for any other company.
Mr. Alario explained that in discussing the matter with the Attorney, it was
spelled out if the data was used for any other purposes, the City would be held
harmless and indemnified. It was not to be used for anything else except for
record purposes so that Anaheim Disposal could run their business, and it would
also be no cost to the City of Anaheim in so doing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Councilman Kott if he would agree to withdraw the
portion of his motion, "and any other company" and state that it would be for
Anaheim Disposal's purposes only; Councilmen Kott and Roth accepted the
recommendation.
78-1542
qity ~al~., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt asked if there was any security risk by increasing the distri-
bution of terminals to non-City offices.
Mr. Talley stated that he understood the terminal would require an operator to
identify himself with a code and the terminal was allowed to access only certain
information and nothing else. If it tried to access any other information, the
Anaheim Data Processing Department would be so advised.
Mr. Tug Tamaru, Data Processing Director, stated they were working on software
to develop the security for an authorization code which would only be made avail-
able to Anaheim Disposal such being the usual practice in the industry. This
would only allow Anaheim Disposal to access the sanitation data elements of that
file.
Mr. Bill Taormina, President of Anaheim Disposal, stated that the data involved
how many trash bins, how many times a week they were picked up, and the name of
the company and nothing else of a confidential nature.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification that the information Mr. Taormina
was requesting at present was the same information he had before, but under a
new contract; Mr. Taormina stated that was correct.
Following clarification that the Policy would include Anaheim Disposal Company
only for collection of commercial and industrial waste, a vote was taken on
the foregoing motion to adopt amended Council Policy No. 304 as follows:
COUNCIL POLICY NO. 304:
"It is the policy of the City Council that Utilities customer records are not
public records and will not be disclosed to anyone except Anaheim Disposal
Company as required pursuant to collection of commercial and industrial solid
waste contractual agreements entered into by the City. In the event disclosure
of certain Utilities customer records is necessary to administer the terms and
conditions of such agreement, they may be disclosed to the contractor, provided
that the contractor agrees in writing that he will not use information from
such records in an unauthorized manner and will defend, indemnify and hold the
City harmless for any claims made for misuse."
MOTION CARRIED.
123/135: SURPLUS CITY PROPERTY AT THE ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE: Report con-
cerning the discussions with the holder of the note on golf course property to
obtain agreement concerning sale of golf course land (requested at the October 31,
1978 meeting), was submitted.
City Attorney Hopkins briefed the Council on his report dated November 16, 1978
relative to the subject property. He also referred to the Equestrian Center lease
agreement with Texaco-Anaheim Hills and their request to expand the Center. This
was one of the main reasons for exploring the possibility of amending the purchase
agreement between the City and Robert H. Grant Corporation to permit the City to
sell up to 55 acres of surplus property, including the Equestrian Center.
78-1543
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Dan Salcedo, Anaheim Hills, Inc., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, stated on October 31,
1978, it was his impression that the Council was eager to consider the possibility
of sale rather than lease of the Equestrian Center to Texaco-Anaheim Hills, and
they were a willing buyer.
Mayor Seymour stated that although they indicated they would be a willing buyer,
that was in accordance with the appraised value of the property, but they might
not be so willing if the price escalated.
Mr. Salcedo stated that all he wanted to express was, in accordance with discus-
sions with the City Attorney, that any monies they were to give in terms of the
sale of the particular property would go directly to the City to be at their
disposal and not be placed into the special funds, as would some other properties
within the golf course proper.
Mr. Hopkins confirmed that was correct. The lease agreement between the City and
Texaco-Anaheim Hills did provide, in the case of the 15 acres involved, that that
money could be applied to the City's General Fund and would not have to go toward
the payment of the indebtedness. It was a special provision covered in the original
agreement dated February 29, 1972.
Mr. Larry Sierk, Chamber of Commerce, asked that their letter dated November 17,
1978 be entered into the record. The City Clerk thereupon read the letter as
follows:
"The City Council will soon take action on a lease of five acres of land adjoining
the present Equestrian Center in Anaheim Hills.
The Anaheim Chamber of Commerce feels as they did in August, 1977 regarding the
Matlow-Kennedy proposal to purchase 18.7 acres of land adjacent to the Stadium;
that the City should develop a policy of seeking more than one bid on (City)
publicly owned land.
We believe the same principal applies whether the land is for sale or lease, and
would ask that similar consideration be given this parcel as the above mentioned
18.7 acres of City land.
A review of action on the 18.7 acres will reveal that the City, because of Council
action at the time, achieved additional financial gain. Hopefully, this will be
true on the parcel being considered.
Sincerely,
Allan B. Hughes, President"
Mayor Seymour then recalled that the last action on the matter was to ask the
Golf Course Commission, at a public hearing at the Convention Center, to further
pursue and refine alternatives discussed at that meeting. It was his understanding
that the Commission had been working toward that end, and thus it was presumptuous
of the Council to make a decision before speaking or meeting with them. Part of
the direction given to the Commission was to consider the possibility of the develop-
ment of that property. Thus, although his personal inclination today was to sell
the property on the basis of it being a commercial/recreational use, although he had
not reached a final decision, they should again meet with the Golf Course Commis-
sion to get their input as to alternatives, and then subsequently make a decision to
move.
78-1544
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed that when someone was directed to do something and
in the meantime a decision was made, it was not the best way to handle the matter,
nor would it bring about the best decision. Also, in Mr. Ruth's letter dated
October 3, 1978, page 2, he stated, "Staff recently completed a study of open
space and recreation land requirements in the Hill and Canyon area and feel it
would be unlikely that we would develop this property for park purposes for at
least another five (5) years. The Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department
does feel that it is important to retain this property for a future park site
inasmuch as it is the only flat land presently owned by the City in this service
area."
She believed at this time it would be worthwhile to survey the residents relative
to retaining the land for such use.
Discussion then followed regarding continuance of the meeting to a date certain.
Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director, stated that the Golf
Course Commission had met twice since the October 31, 1978 meeting. The scope
the Council had given them was so extensive that they had not yet come close to
any decisions. He, therefore, suggested that the specific piece of property be
segmented out of the entire charge they were given, so that they might come to
a timely decision on that portion.
Mayor Seymour stated that is what the Council preferred--to have the Commission
come to a decision on the particular 15 acres under consideration.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
Council determined to hold a meeting on Thursday, November 30, 1978, 3:30 P.M.,
at the Convention Center with the Golf Course Commission relative to the subject
matter. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Councilman Roth commended the City Attorney and his staff on
obtaining a verbal commitment relative to the release clauses in the note, whereas
in the past it was necessary to first pay off the whole note or none of the prop-
erty could be sold.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare the
necessary documents for the signature of all parties to amend the purchase agree-
ment between the City and the Robert H. Grant Corporation to permit the City to
sell up to 55 acres of surplus property including the Equestrian Center at the
Anaheim Hills Golf Course. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
175: MEETING ON COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION (CABLE TELEVISION - CATV): .City
Clerk Roberts stated that a verbal request had been received from HACMAC asking
that the CATV meeting scheduled for November 28, 1978 be rescheduled to a later
date to allow for further study.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that if a cable television franchise could be worked
out with no cost to the City and at the same time be of benefit to the Canyon area,
she saw no need for an additional meeting on the matter and was ready to approve it
presently.
78-1545
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, explained that Dr. Dyas was going to have
some of the cable companies speak at the meeting to explain their programs.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
the meeting relative to cable television previously scheduled for November 28,
1978, was rescheduled for Wednesday, December 6, 1978, 7:00 P.M., at the main
Library. MOTION CARRIED.
180: WORKERS' COMPENSATION EXCESS INSURANCE: City Manager Talley referred to
a memorandum dated November 7, 1978, from the Risk Manager along with attached
premium calculations relative to the subject insurance. He explained that two
days after the meeting of October 31, 1978, they received a communication dated
November 2, 1978, from Continental General Insurance (CGI) indicating they thought
a further savings could be realized. Staff did not concur and therefore included
the tabulation with the memorandum showing what they thought costs were. Mr.
Parker had pointed out in the first paragraph, page 2 of his letter, "Since this
coverage is available through an admitted insurer, at a premium savings to the
City of Anaheim, of $3,911.00, I cannot conceal this information." Mr. Talley
believed it appropriate to bring the matter before the Council so that they could
be aware the letter had been received. If there were no inquiries, it would be
appropriate to receive and file the letter.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Talley's or Mr. Love's response to the $3,911 savings
in premium offered by CGI.
Mr. Talley stated that the matter came up two days after the Council's previous
decision with activity occurring subsequent to that action. At the time the
Council reached that decision, it was based upon all available information in-
cluding that of CGI. Subsequently, according to the calculations on page 2 of
the staff report, they believed the figure still to be approximately $527 higher
because it was based upon a minimum deposit premium, but if it was calculated
against the actual payroll, it would be higher. Therefore, staff was of the
opinion that the bid previously received and accepted was lower.
Mr. Hal Parker, CGI, stated that at the October 31, 1978 meeting, when the
decision was made to place the insurance, he advised it was his opinion that
a reasonable rate was about $8,000 which he attempted to secure for some 45 days.
It was unfortunate, however, that the new reinsurer did not come through until
the day after the meeting and after a decision had been made. However, he felt
that he could not conceal the fact that it had come through. He also believed
that the misunderstanding in the calculations was in the .51 figure (page 2 of
November 7, 1978 memo). The correct figure should be .385 which after multiplying
the $2.529,859 annual premium would result in the $9,009 estimated earnings annual
premium.
Further discussion followed between Mayor Seymour and staff revolving around the
difference in rate of premium which Mayor Seymour pointed out represented a savings
to the City. He also maintained if it were possible to buy the insurance somewhere
else cheaper, he would short-rate the more expensive policy and buy the cheaper
insurance. He failed to understand why staff was not following such procedure in
this case.
78-1546
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley maintained that Mr. Parker had 45 days to present a quote, but if he
lost the business, he could present a quote in 48 hours. That was not the way
he would prefer Anaheim to do business and if the City followed that procedure,
he questioned what integrity the City would have in any kind of bid process.
That was his main concern.
Mayor Seymour stated the integrity was to get the best and lowest premium for
the taxpayers of Anaheim and suggested it would not be unethical to buy a short-
rate policy and cancel the insurance.
Mr. Talley emphasized that, in his opinion, it was unethical for a person to
come in 48 hours after losing a bid with a substantially lower bid, which he pre-
viously could not deliver in 45 days' time.
Councilman Roth stated that on October 31, 1978, they were told that the insurance
was going to be cancelled at midnight unless Council acted and on that day they
took the lowest available policy rate. He now took issue with the fact that CGI
a few weeks later was presenting something less and the Council was expected to
cancel out the low bid and start changing insurance companies. He stated, as he
had several times in the past and would do so every time, that the insurance
situation was "scary" and that the Council was always being stampeded into acting
on the last day. He considered it to be wrong and he was never going to act again
on an insurance policy where he was told that it was necessary to make a decision
or else cancellation would occur, whether by Continental General or any other company,-,
Mr. Parker took issue with the comments that CGI was not able to perform within
the given period. He stated at the October 31, 1978 meeting that, in his opinion,
the $12,000 was too high and that they could secure a lower rate.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that relative to an earlier item on the agenda,
one Risk Management consultant refused to act on the City's request for proposals
due to the City's recent decision to retain its current broker and the conditions
under which the selection was made. She could not put the City in a situation
where its credibility was questione~and she was not going to be party to vacillat-
ing between decisions agai~ because it made the City look ridiculous.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the matter be continued for two weeks
and that the City Manager be directed to present a recommendation with regard to
the possibility of short-rating the existing coverage or continuing with it and
to re-evaluate the figures that had been presented to the Council. Councilman
Seymour seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott stated that he had no objection to the
continuance, but he did not believe the subject continuance would change the situ-
ation since the City Manager already stated he believed it unethical to change.
He suggested that the City Manager be given criteria upon which to make his judg-
ment, either in terms of ethics or in terms of what was the best and cheapest
rate for the taxpayer.
Councilman Overholt stated he was not questioning the ethics of either Mr. Talley,
Mr. Love or CGI, but his intent was to have the Council presented with information
that they could discuss since there seems to be a problem relative to the figures
given by Mr. Love.
78-1547
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123/150: HISTORIC PRESERVATION STUDY AND CATALOG: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 78R-744 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated November 14,
1978, from the Executive Director Norm Priest, approving an agreement with Thomas
V. Reeve, II, for an Historic Preservation Study and Catalog, in an amount not to
exceed $9,470. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-744: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THOMAS V. REEVE II AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-744 duly passed and adopted.
114: SAVE ANAHEIM COALITION - REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: Councilwoman
Kaywood moved to continue the subject request to November 28, 1978, as requested,
but to the afternoon Council session, instead of 7:00 P.M.
Before action was taken, Councilman Roth pointed out that a work session was
also scheduled that night with the Planning Commission, Housing and Redevelopment
for 7:30 P.M.
The foregoing motion died for lack of a second.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the request of
the Save Anaheim Coalition to address the Council on Tuesday, November 28, 1978,
at 7:00 p.m., in the Main Library was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested putting a time limitation on that presentation
so that it did not extend into the work session. Mayor Seymour stated that if a
presentation became over-extended, the Council had the authority to cut it off,
but he did not want to preset a time limitation.
150: ANAHEIM HISTORICAL MUSEUM COMMITTEE - HISTORICAL MEMENTOS: Request by
Mr. Howard Loudon, Anaheim Historical Museum Committee, for historical mementos
from various Redevelopment Agency-owned buildings and for information relating
to the legal status of the Museum Committee, was submitted.
City Attorney Hopkins briefed the Council on his memorandum dated November 14,
1978 relative to the subject request. He first pointed out that all references
in the memorandum should be to the Anaheim Historical Museum Committee and not
the Anaheim Historical Society as indicated in the second paragraph. He continued
that it was his opinion that the Museum Committee could not receive the items
requested without some consideration; however, a proper purchase agreement could
be reached. With regard to the tax exempt status, the Constitution of California
provided that such museums, open and free to the public, would be tax exempt, and
the Council could appoint several members of the Committee or the Committee could
form an organization of corporate status or association status.
78-1548
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Executive Director Norm Priest stated that the mementos referred to were involved
with structures currently under demolition contracts. Thus, he would appreciate
policy guidelines from the Council as to the direction in which they would like
to head inasmuch as a short time period was involved. The recommendation there-
fore in the absence of the formation of such a non-profit organization as referred
to by the City Attorney, would be that the Agency for Redevelopment purposes con-
vey the mementos to the City and that the Council direct the City or City staff
to accept them and appropriately store them (see memorandum dated November 16, 1978
from the Community Development Department on file in the City Clerk's Office).
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the City accept the mementos as outlined
in the November 16, 1978 memorandum from the Community Development Department for
use in a community museum in the project area and to direct City staff to provide
storage for the mementos until the establishment of a museum. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed into Executive Session. (2:50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:05 P.M.)
112: CITY OF ANAHEIM VERSUS REYNOLDS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded
by Councilman Kott, Special Counsel for the City was authorized to settle pending
litigation in the City of Anaheim versus Reynolds, in the amount of $85,500.
MOTION CARRIED.
112: CLAIM OF CIRCLE SEAL CONTROLS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by
Councilman Kott, the City Attorney and the Carl Warren & Company were authorized to
compromise the claim of Circle Seal Controls for a sum not to exceed $1,152.22.
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1901: To permit a recreational vehicle
park in conjunction with an existing motel on C-R zoned property located at 2029
South Harbor Boulevard, with a waiver of required setback.
Mayor Seymour announced that before considering the hearings preceeding the subject
condftional use permit, a letter had been received from the applicant dated October 25,
1978, asking that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission. He there-
upon asked if anyone was present to speak either in favor or in opposition to Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1901, as he did at the beginning of the meeting, in order to
preclude a member of the public from waiting or sitting through the whole meeting.
There was no response.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, Conditional
Use Permit No. 1901 was referred back to the Planning Commission, as requested by
the applicant in his letter dated October 25, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
101/123: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - LOS ANGELES RAMS FOOTBATJ. COMPANY: At the
request of Mayor Seymour, City Manager Talley briefed the Council on his detailed
memorandum dated November 16, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office) relative
to the Los Angeles Rams Football Company agreements and related reports recommend-
ing that the Council approve the four proposed resolutions, approving the terms and
78-1549
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
and conditions of the Exhibition Agreement with the Los Angeles Rams Football
Company, the Ground Lease with Anaheim Stadium Associates, the Low Elementary
School Site Lease with Magnolia School District, the sublease between the City
and the Los Angeles Rams Football Company for the use of the Low Elementary
School site and two motions, one to receive and file the economic analysis of
the proposed agreements as prepared by Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and
the second requesting Anaheim Stadium, Inc., in accordance with the Exhibition
Agreement, to enter into the necessary agreements to employ a financial consul-
tant, bond counsel, and engineering and architectural services to draw up the
plans and specifications for the expansion of the Stadium facility. As well,
Mr. Talley briefed the Council on the summary of benefits evaluation sheet
provided by SRI regarding what would accrue to the City under the Exhibition
Agreement, Ground Lease and Low School Lease, outlining the key provisions of
the agreements, the estimated value to the City and benefits to the City. The
SRI report estimated that the net revenue to the City over the next 35 years
beginning in 1980, from the leases to be executed, would be $45 million in
current dollars (full SRI report, agreements and leases on file in the City
Clerk's Office). Present today were representatives from Stanford Research,
the Magnolia School District and also City staff who worked with the Mayor
and Councilman Overholt in presenting the agreements in their present form
ready for signature. There were however minor changes, nonsubstantive in
nature, submitted less than one hour ago.
Mr. Talley stated that the proposed agreements and leases before the Council
concluded nearly a year of arduous and successful negotiations. He expressed
his appreciation to Assistant City Manager William T. Hopkins, Assistant City
Attorney Frank Lowry, Finance Director George Ferrone, Parks, Recreation and
Arts Director James Ruth, Planning Director Ron Thompson, Public Works Director
Thorny Piersall, and Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director Tom Liegler. This
was the management team who worked with Mayor Seymour, Councilman Overholt and
himself in putting the agreements together. Not only was the leadership the
Council gave recognized, but also each member was proud to have been a part of a
team they felt achieved an ambition of Anaheim that had existed since the Stadium
was built.
Prior to taking public testimony, the Mayor asked Assistant City Attorney Frank
Lowry to specifically enumerate qn the minor changes in the agreements that had
taken place in the last 24 hours.
Mr. Frank Lowry stated there were five and number as follows:
1. Ground Lease: .Notwithstanding Sections 101, 501,801, 802 and 901, the NMP
Associates shall have no maintenance, repair, insurance, utilities or other
similar responsibilities with respect to any parking areas until after ASI
begins constructing improvements upon them.
2. Page 6 - Section 3.03 - Separate Leases: (4th line from the bottom) Insert
the word, shall, between ASA and the word, be.
3. Page 19 - Section 6.02 - Hypothecation: (last line) Reduce $100 million to
$50 million.
78-1550
City Rall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
4. Page 24 - Section 6.03(b): (8th line from the bottom) The term "similar
services" should be included to mean other routine obligations of landlords
generally included in commercial leases such as repairs and maintenance.
5. Page 28 - Section 8.02 - Insurance: (16 lines from the bottom) Delete the
words "acceptable for the City"--superfluous.
The Mayor asked if any member of the public had questions or wished to state their
position relative to the matter.
Mr. Furman Roberts, City Attorney of the City of Orange, stated that the Council
wanted it made clear they were not opposed to the Rams and congratulated the City
in having obtained them. They were concerned, however, that the revenues to be
received which appeared to be very substantial and hopefully proved to be profitable,
would not result in any unreasonable cost to the City of Orange in terms of commun-
ity cost. When he appeared before the Council previously, he expressed their con-
cern with some of the problems that were currently occurring around the Stadium
and with the planned expansion and development, the problems could be increased.
As an example, there were a number of "no parking" signs all about the Stadium and
adjacent streets. At certain times, particularly during rock concerts and other
peak traffic times, there was a certain spillover of traffic into the streets of
Orange, putting a cost and burden on the city in order to patrol and keep those
streets clear. Thus, it was not always the most proper planning from their point
of view to put up "no parking" signs along those streets. It did present a challenge...,
to them and therefore they were quite concerned over a major expansion and asked
that that fact be considered, along with the costs associated with traffic, parking
and the noise that might occur so there would be no social cost thrust upon Anaheim's
neighbors. In essence, there were people in Orange who did have concerns and there
were residential areas across the river that had experienced the adverse impacts of
noise, traffic and parking, and they hoped that those would be carefully weighed.
He was interested in knowing if Anaheim would consider alleviating the cost that
might be thrust on the City of Orange as the result of those matters.
Mayor Seymour stated that the City of Orange had been a good neighbor in the past
and both cities had a good relationship with each other. He maintained it was in-
cumbent upon Anaheim, to the degree that the City would cause spillover parking, to
work out whatever possible with Orange to mit{gate those conditions. As well,
setting the Rams question aside, rock concerts had caused such problems in the
past and speaking on behalf of the Council, he would appreciate the city staff of
Orange working with Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director, and
Anaheim's Police Department to the degree that they were dissatisfied and subse-
quently the Council would be interested in hearing those concerns.
Mrs. Genevieve Fulton, 1801 North Greenley, Santa Ana, stated that she was not
against the Rams coming to Anaheim and favored the move. However, there was a
problem with parking in the residential district and even the industrial district
since there were "no parking" signs on Anaheim property all the way to Anaheim
Boulevard. She saw no reason why parking was not allowed on both sides of the
street and on Anaheim Boulevard. The problem would not be a result of the Rams
move, but one presently existing. Her contention was that if the price of parking
at the Stadium was somewhat lower, young people could park on the lot. As it was
78-1551
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
now, when they had to purchase tickets in advance, they lined up on the residential
streets 24 hours in advance and no restroom facilities were available for those
people. They brought guitars and sang and were a general nuisance. She reiterated
they could park on the lot or if parking restrictions around the area were relaxed,
such action would mitigate the severe parking problem. She lived in Santa Ana, but
her business was in Orange at La Veta and Main and she was trying to protect tax
dollars. Otherwise, Orange would have to put signs up in residential districts
at their expense, and they did not want to do that.
Mr. Red Patterson of the California Angels stated on behalf of the Angels,
Messrs. Autry, Bavasi and himself, they were happy to see the Rams come to
Anaheim and believed the move would truly make the County the sports capital'
of the West Coast, if not the world.
Mr. Patterson continued that he was concerned about Point 5 of the Exhibition
Agreement wherein it stated that the City would be fully reimbursed for game day
expenses. He wanted to know if that also meant that the Rams would take some part
in the year-round expenses that amounted to approximately $.5 million.
Mr. Liegler first commented that a fine relationship has existed between the City
and the California Angels for the past 12 years, and the Angels did pay a substan-
tial portion of non-game day costs. Included in the contract with the Rams was
the provision for them to pay their proportionate share of those costs, along with
the Angels and all other tenants, thereby lessening the burden on all throughout
the coming years. It would be done on a per capita basis as was discussed with
Messrs. Patterson and Bavasi, rather than a precise basis. He emphasized that the
City had always been fair in its cost allocation to all tenants.
Mr. Patterson then questioned the parking, calling for 15,000 spaces. He wanted
to know how much of that parking was going to be bi-level.
Mr. Liegler answered that it was possible with additional properties they intended
to purchase and improve that they would not have to go to multi-level parking.
Mayor Seymour, on behalf of the Council, thanked Mr. Patterson for the cooperation
the Angels had extended throughout the negotiations. The organization had been a
good friend to Anaheim.
Mr. Dan VanDorpe, consulting engineer, 863 Jasper Circle, posed two questions:
(1) relative to the financial evaluation summary, it reflected the present worth
of a series of payments received by the City versus the present worth of a series
of expenditures to the City, indicating a net difference of $32 million. He wanted
to know at what interest rate the present worth figures were computed. (2) Relative
to the existing 15-year old structure designed in accordance with the engineering
technology at that time, he wanted to know what considerations had been given to
bringing the current structure into compliance with current earthquake engineering
technology.
78-1552
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -November 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
In answer to the first question, Mr. James Vas Dias, Stanford Research Institute,
stated the discount factor used to provide the present worth was the City's cost
of capital of 6.5 percent for the municipal bond issue.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, stated that relative to Mr. Van Dorpe's
second question, those factors had been taken into consideration and the specifi-
cations were being worked on presently. Thus, consideration had been given to
bringing the existing structure up to current earthquake technology, but no final
decision had been made as to how that would be accomplished.
Mrs. Reeda Ram, representing the residents in the Juliette Low Elementary School
attendance area, stated they were very much opposed to the Rams coming in and
using the Juliette Low School as a training site. Their speakers were out of
town for the holidays, but she believed the City had heard all that they had to
say. She then presented to the Council copies of 14 letters that were previously
sent to Mr. Steve Rosenbloom to be made a part of the record. She hoped that the
Council could believe the promises made by the Rams and suggested that everything
be obtained in writing beforehand.
Mr. Joseph White, 809 West Broadway, asked who was going to pay the possessory
interest tax.
Mr. Liegler answered that all taxes, billings, and business license fees with
no exclusions were going to be paid by the Rams or their successor.
Mr. Bill Postma member of the Magnolia School Board, explained that they had
experienced the situation of declining enrollment in their District and that was
true of other elementary districts in the City. The situation forced them to
close one of their schools the previous year, that being the Juliette Low Elemen-
tary School. At that time, they did not know what they were going to do with the
facilities, and it was obvious with the number of children involved that it would
not make sense to operate nine schools. When they heard that the Rams were inter-
ested in using the Low School site for training, they thought it would be advantageous
for the School District and the community as a whole, because they would then have
a tenant for that facility and one where they would not have to worry about mainte-
nance. Thus, he could speak for all the Board members in saying they were happy
the City was interested, and as a result of that interest, they discussed the
matter at a number of Board meetings and listened to the concerns of a number of
residents who attended their public meetings and expressed those concerns. As time
went on, they believed they were taking care of the concerns and they did set up
a citizens committee to look at what usage they, as a School District, should make
of the Juliette Low School. It was not made up of any Board members, but people
selected from the community involving each of the 9 school attendance areas~ That
committee then made a recommendation to the Board, consisting of an 8 to 1 decision,
to lease the Juliette Low School facility to Anaheim with the understanding that
the City would lease it to the Rams. Based on those facts, he encouraged the
City Council to move ahead on the agreement with the Rams so that they could derive
some income from the school property and they, as a School District, would no longer
have to maintain a facility they were not using.
78-1553
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
In order to clarify the situation, Councilman Roth asked if what Mr. Postma was
saying was that the Low School would have been closed whether the Rams used
it or not. Mr. Postma answered that the Low School was closed, and the belief
that the City or the Rams caused the closure was not true. They were forced to
close the school because of a decline in enrollment. The effective date of the
closure was June 1, 1978. When they conducted a study, they agreed to finish the
current school year ending 1977/78 so actually, the effective date would have been
June 30, 1978.
Councilman Kott noted there were quite a number of concerns of the people with
which Mr. Postma was undoubtedly familiar, and he asked if those had been
answered in his opinion.
Mr. Postma stated he believed they had and they tried to eliminate those con-
cerns in the lease their attorney had drawn up with which the Council was familiar.
They spelled out matters such as providing access through the school so that children
who attended Polk School could still gain access through the school yard. As far
as he could determine, the concerns had been addressed and he had been to the area
and personally talked to the people there. He believed that as a School Board, they
had done everything they could with the interest of the district as a whole in mind.
He reiterated it was a unique advantage to the district to have a good tenant and
based on that, he then encouraged the City to proceed with the proposal.
Mr. Tom Riley, owner of Shamrock Contractors, stated that the access to the pro-
posed training center crossed his property, and his firm was presently prepared
to start the development of that property. They had been through plan check,
were ready to apply for building permits, had their financing and were ready to
proceed. When they became aware that the Rams would be a potential tenant to
their contiguous property, they were very pleased and believed that a professional
organization such as the Rams would enhance the value of the property proposed to
be used, as well as their own. For that reason, his company was willing to grant
an easement to the City at no cost because they believed that the professional
team located on that property would be of benefit to the City. Mr. Riley then
showed a rendering of one of two buildings that would be developed on the site,
representing over $2 million worth of rented or leased property.
Mr. Gene Sommerville, Anaheim resident, asked (1) if the present hearing was the
first conducted on the Rams and (2) was an MAI appraisal ever made on the peripheral
Stadium property.
Mayor Seymour answered that the hearing today was the first technical public hearing
on the matter. Discussions had been public before when the Rams matter was discussed
during a normal Council meeting, but those were not called a public hearing, and
they were not legally advertised as in the case of formal public hearings.
Relative to an MAI appraisal having been conducted, the Mayor answered "no". City
Manager Talley interjected that the City had sold a smaller, more regularly con-
formed parcel, across the street from the subject property at which time an appraisal
was made. Based upon that appraisal, the value of the subject property at $80,000
an acre plus $1,500 an acre per year escalated by the CPI was substantially in
excess of the parcel sold across the street which lent itself more readily for
development. Secondly, the subject property was encumbered with certain easements
such as a parking lot and utility lines. Lastly, it anticipated a much higher level
of development than the other which would create a substantially higher value for the
City.
78-1554
City .Halls Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry also confirmed for Mr. Sommerville, for
purposes of time comparison, that the sale of the property took place June 30,
1978.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Kott asked Mrs. Ram what concerns of hers and those she represented
had not been addressed.
Mrs. Ram stated that everything had been expressed and all the questions they had
asked had been answered. However, they felt that the school was built as an edu-
cational facility and that is what it should remain. She did not think they could
be blamed for not believing the Rams relative to the things they promised. They
had also promised that if the people did not want them in the neighborhood, they
would not come. Mr. Steve Rosenbloom told them in front of 40 people when he
attended a meeting at one of the homes of the residents, the Rams would not come
if they did not want them.
Mayor Seymour stated he was totally aware of that promise and he had promised the
same thing. He believed it was also fair to state, and the documentation would
show, that the neighborhood did want the Rams to come, but not all residents since
some were opposed.
Mrs. Ram stated that at the Planning Commission hearing, they presented a petition
signed by 116 people in just the homes surrounding the Juliette Low School. They
did not survey the people in the entire Low attendance area, but just that neigh-
borhood.
Mayor Seymour stated that a survey was taken of the entire neighborhood servicing
Juliette Low and two-thirds responded by saying they favored the Rams. When he said
if the neighborhood wanted them to come, he was speaking to the majority of those
in the entire attendance area--those people who had an interest in the school and
who had sent their children to it before it was closed. The people in the immediate
area did have precedence, as suggested by Mrs. Ram, and if there were still concerns
remaining that had not been answered environmentally, for example, the City would
want to address those even further. However, if the opposition was as Mrs. Ram
stated--that they wanted the school opened--the City might empathize and may want
to see it open, but that was not within its purview.
Mrs. Ram stated that a Christian Academy was interested in the site for a private
school and she believed that a church school should be allowed instead of an NFL
football team.
Mayor Seymour stated that was heard by both the citizens' committee, as well as the
School Board, and the survey opted for the Rams and thus, the will of the majority
of the people who resided in the surrounding neighborhood had been expressed.
Councilman Kott asked, relative to Item 2 of the ground lease, if it was something
that could be dealt with by itself in light of the recent passage of the Charter
Amendments regarding the sale of land.
78-1555
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Assistant City Attorney Lowry stated at the present time, the Charter Amendment
had not been certified by the Secretary of State and until that time, it was
not effective and Council did have the power at this time to enter into the
agreement.
Councilman Kott then asked who, other than the City, would pay for the improve-
ments that would take place at the Low School. According to his documentation,
the City was supposed to pay, and he was under the impression that the City was
not to incur any expenses.
Finance Director George Ferrone stated there would be approximately $500,000
worth of improvements to be done at the Low School site that would be covered
through the bond issue to be sold and paid for in the lease arrangement with the
Rams. '
Councilman Kott asked if it was allowed to take the money used for tax exempt
purposes, and put it into another building.
Mr. Ferrone answered that Bond Counsel gave the opinion that the City could use
the interest income from the bond proceeds. Although the details had not yet been
worked out, that was where the source of money would be derived.
Mayor Seymour stated that the City's assurance that the one-half million dollars
of improvements would not be taken out of the General Fund, would be a contract or
an agreement from ASI that would permit the City to draw from that interest income.
If that were true, he asked when such an agreement would be forthcoming from ASI.
Mr. Lowry stated that the cost of improvements would not be paid out of the City's
General Fund. Although the documentation stated that the City would pay, it did
not state how it would be financed. As to the disposition of an agreement from ASI,
one of the proposed motions before the Council was requesting that ASI proceed to
enter into necessary agreements. He expected them to be completed during the course
of the bond sale and drafting of the necessary documents in order to go to bid for
construction. He expected those agreements to be forthcoming within the next 30 to
60 days.
Mr. Talley explained that from the start of negotiations, the Rams proposed approx-
imately one-half million dollars of the bond sale be used for the improvements of
the training center, but in order to do that, it would require ASI to enter into
a sublease either with the School District or the City. The City's thinking was
that it would be simpler to use the interest money rather than to go through another
sublease agreement, but it could be done either way.
Mayor Seymour recommended amending the proposed motion relative to ASI entering
into the necessary agreements to include an agreement insuring that the $500,000
in improvements at the Juliette Low School would not be expended from the City's
General Fund, but would be paid by ASI.
Mayor Seymour stated that although there were such a multitude of points to be
negotiated, he could attest that the entire matter was negotiated as strongly as
they knew how with the help of staff including the City Manager. He asked there-
fore that the Council give positive approval to the agreements, and although there
might be a portion of a particular agreement that they would like to see a bit
78-1556
City. Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
different, he asked them to consider the whole matter and all aspects of it in
their approval. He believed it to be the greatest opportunity the City of Anaheim
had before it since Disneyland and the California Angels. He reiterated the matter
had been negotiated long and hard and Councilman Overholt, the negotiating team
and himself were presenting resultant agreements which, in all clear conscience,
they could recommend a very positive and "yes" vote on each and every one. He
personally felt that not only would they be of great benefit to the City today,
but also the whole project would be of greater benefit to the City tomorrow. He
strongly encouraged the Council to support the various resolutions and motions
about to be voted upon.
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution Nos. 78R-745 through 78R-748,
both inclusive, for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated November 16,
1978, from the City Manager. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-745: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN EXHIBITION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE LOS ANGELES
RAMS FOOTBALL COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
EXHIBITION AGREEMENT.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-746: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING A GROUND LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ANAHEIM STADIUM
ASSOCIATES, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, FOR THE LEASE OF APPROXIMATELY
NINETY ACRES OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY GENERALLY BOUNDED BY KATELLA AVENUE,
ORANGEWOOD AVENUE, STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND DOUGLASS STREET, AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID GROUND LEASE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-747: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING A LEASE BETWEEN THE MAGNOLIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FOR THE JULIETTE LOW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID LEASE.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-748: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE LOS ANGELES RAMS FOOTBALL COMPANY TO SUB-
LEASE THE JULIETTE LOW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE SAID LEASE 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-745 through 78R-748, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the economic
analysis of the proposed agreements as prepared by Stanford Research Institute
was received and filed. MOTION CARRIED.
78-1557
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, in accordance
with the Exhibition Agreement, Anaheim Stadium, Inc., was requested to enter into
the necessary agreements to employ a financial consultant, bond counsel, and
engineering and architectural services to draw up the plans and specifications
for the expansion of the Stadium facility with an agreement also to be forthcoming
from ASI insuring that the $500,000 in improvements at Juliette Low School would
not be expended from the City's General Fund, but would be paid for by ASI.
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1897 AND EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
To permit a multi-purpose facility for park, recreation and professional sports
training uses on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 215 North Ventura Street--
Juliette Low Elementary School site as discussed above. Review of the Planning
Commission's action was requested by the City Council on November 7, 1978, and
public hearing scheduled this date.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-239, declared the
subject project exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact
report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
and, further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1897, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the proposed use to permit a multiple-purpose facility for park, recrea-
tion and professional sports training uses is hereby granted subject to the follow-
ing stipulations by the petitioner as specified in Exhibit "B" on file with the
City of Anaheim (a letter from D. Stephen Rosenbloom, Assistant to the President,
Los Angeles Rams Football Company, to James D. Ruth, Parks, Recreation and the
Arts Department, City of Anaheim, dated September 12, 1978) and summarized as
follows:
a. That Rams personnel will enter and exit subject property from Lincoln Avenue
only, that the existing entrance to the school parking lot from Polk Avenue (Note:
This street was mistakenly identified as Monterey Street in the aforementioned
letter) will be closed with a locked gate, and that an access easement to subject
property from Lincoln Avenue will be acquired across the adjacent property to the
south.
b. That if requested for reasons of security, the Rams will install canvas on
the existing fence separating subject property from the municipal golf course to
the north and that the Rams will be responsible for maintaining said canvas.
c. That approximately 80 parking spaces will be available in the existing park-
ing lot; that during the football season, from September through December, the
Rams will only require a maximum of 60 on-site parking spaces and that from
January through August only 25 parking spaces will be needed by the Rams.
d. That no tickets will be sold to the general public at subject property be-
cause the ticket office will be located at the Anaheim Stadium.
e. That the.only planned major alteration at subject property is the construction
of a shower room facility between two existing buildings on the Lincoln Avenue
side of the property and that the new building would be constructed in the same
architectural style as the existing buildings.
78-1558
City .Hal.l~ Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- November 21, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
f. That a large swimming pool may be constructed on the subject property and,
if so, shall be made available to area residents for community therapeutic swim
programs.
g. That two tennis courts may be constructed and maintained by the Rams.
h. That the existing playground equipment shall be improved and maintained by
the Rams.
i. That the existing pedestrian walkway across subject property and providing
access between Polk Avenue to the east and Gilbert Street to the west will be
fenced, lengthened, and maintained by the Rams.
j. That there will be no "open" practices by the Rams football team unless re-
quested by the City of Anaheim and that persons wishing to watch practice will
be cleared by the Rams.
k. That a "tower" for the use of a photographer for filming practice sessions
will not be used on the property but instead a hydraulic lift which lowers to
the approximate height of an automobile will be utilized.
1. That the Rams football practice sessions and team meetings will typically
be five days a week from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
2. That the property shall be developed substantially in accordance with Exhibit
"A" (an aerial photograph with an overlay identifying the practice fields, the
swimming pool, the shower and locker room, and the vehicular access from Lincoln
Avenue) presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing and on file
with the City of Anaheim.
3. That if a problem develops with people attempting to view the Rams training
activities from Ventura Street or Polk Avenue thereby disturbing the residents
of the area, a decorative concrete block wall shall be constructed to the rear
of the minimum required structural setback along Ventura Street.
4. That no "football clinics" or "open" practices shall be conducted on the
subject property by the Rams unless requested and/or approved by the City of
Anaheim.
5. That street lighting facilities along Ventura Street shall be installed
prior to the final building and zoning inspections unless otherwise approved
by the Director of Public Utilities; and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit,
letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of
Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee that the above improvement
will be installed prior to occupancy.
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.
78-1559
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
7. That there shall be no vehicular access to subject property from Ventura
Street or Polk Avenue and, therefore, the existing entrance to the school
parking lot from Ventura Street and Polk Avenue shall be closed with a locked
gate.
8. That an easement to provide vehicular access between subject property and
Lincoln Avenue shall be acquired, and that said easement shall be submitted to
the City of Anaheim for approval and then be filed and recorded in the office
of the Orange County Recorder.
9. That a minimum of eighty (80) parking spaces shall be available in the parking
lot.
10. That the proposed shower room facility shall be constructed in the same
architectural style as the existing buildings.
11. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
aerial photograph with overlay on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit "A"
except as may be otherwise provided herein and that if any substantial modifica-
tions are proposed, specific plans shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit.
12. That no tickets to Rams football games shall be sold to the general public
at subject property.
13. That the filming of football practice sessions will be done from a hydraulic
lift which lowers to the approximate height of an automobile and will not utilize
a permanent on-site structure such as a tower.
14. That a decorative block wall shall be constructed to the rear of the minimum
reqnired structural setback along Ventura Street and Polk Avenue if it is determined
by the City of Anaheim that people are attempting to view the Rams football training
activities from Ventura Street or Polk Avenue and thereby disturbing the residents
of the area.
15. That the existing pedestrian walkway across subject property and providing
access between Polk Avenue to the east and Gilbert Street to the west shall be
fenced, lengthened, and maintained by the Los Angeles Rams Football Company, if
determined to be necessary by the City of Anaheim.
16. That the Los Angeles Rams Football Company shall install canvas on the existing
fence separating subject property from the municipal golf course to the north if it
is determined to be necessary by the City of Anaheim for reasons of security and
that the Rams will'maintain said canvas.
17. That the existing playground equipment shall be improved and maintained by
the Los Angeles Rams Football Company if determined to be necessary by the City
of Anaheim.
18. That Condition Nos. 1, 3 and 4, above-mentioned shall be complied with prior
to commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the
time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date
hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may
grant.
78-1560
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
19. That Condition Nos. 5, 6 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections.
Testimony on the subject conditional use permit was previously taken in the
foregoing hearing relative to the Rams.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On mo tion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that this pro-
ject will have no significant effect on the environment since; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the initial study sub-
mitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to
prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-749 for adoption, granting Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1897. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-749: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1897.
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-749 duly passed and adopted.
170: PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL: Request by Mr. Bill Asawa, Ric
Development, for removal of 11 specimen trees to construct a shopping center
on CL zoned property located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road
and Fairmont Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission declared the subject project exempt from the require-
ment to prepare an environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act, and recommended approval of the specimen
tree removal plan.
A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilman Ko tt
on October 31, 1978, and public hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses.. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard; there was no response.
Miss Santalahti stated that the petitioner, Mr. Bill Asawa, had been notified
of the meeting and the matter was discussed with him.
78-1561
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor explained that the Council had three choices--continue the matter to
another public hearing, hear the matter today, or postpone it until a later time
in the meeting.
Councilman Kott recommended that consideration of the matter be postponed to a
later time and in the meantime, that staff try to contact Mr. Asawa to ascertain
if he could be present.
Later in the meeting after all business had been considered, Mr. Asawa was still
not present and Miss Santalahti recommended that the matter be continued for two
weeks since he could not be reached.
Councilman Kott moved that the matter be continued two weeks.
Before further action was taken, Mr. Hans Gowa, 531Paseo de Luna, member of HACMAC,
stated that a number of people were present relative to the item. He contended
that Mr. Asawa was cognizant of the fact that it was to be discussed at today's
meeting and thus, in fairness to those present, he urged the Council to hear the
item.
Mr. Bill Asawa, Vice President of Ric Development Company, 540 North Golden Circle
Drive, Santa Aha, entered the Council Chamber. He explained that they had been
working on the subject project since February and had conducted a number of studies
in order to come up with a plot plan that would work well on the site, taking into
consideration that there were a number of specimen trees located on the property.
There were three owners on the property, but they were fortunate enough in the
final analysis to put together the entire project and developed a schematic plan
(tree preservation study) for the property which he posted on the Chamber wall.
The veterinary hospital previously proposed in the middle of the property had now
been moved to a corner of the site making for a better overall project. He pointed
to the historical site containing the old adobe house which the County presently
had in fee. He also pointed to three large specimen trees located in the approxi-
mate right center of the property in the proposed parking area, two not far removed
from the first three, but closer to Rio Grande Drive and also showed the location
of the six eucalyptus trees.
The plan depicted a street called Donna Lane (street at Rio Grande and Fairmont)
and Mr. Asawa indicated that the driveway into the project at that point had to
be lined up with Donna Lane. He stated that one of the trees they were requesting
to remove was resting on a limb and in danger of falling over and the other specimen
tree adjacent to it would be difficult to relocate considering the alignment of the
driveway. Their original proposal was to remove 11 trees, 5 eucalyptus and 6 peppers.
Their request now was for the removal of 9 trees, 5 eucalyptus and 4 peppers which
he pointed to from the map. They wanted to keep as many trees as possible, but the
ones they wished removed prominently entered into their development plan, thus causing
problems, and they were too large to be moved. He also explained the large grade
differential existing on the property. He then presented photographs to the Council
depicting the subject trees.
In answer to questions posed by the Council, Mr. Asawa explained that the County
was planning to restore the adobe house historical site located on the property;
that under the new plan, 2 pepper trees they were previously planning to remove
78-1562
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
would be saved; and they would replace whatever trees they would remove in accor-
dance with the tree ordinance. He also presented a map to the Council relating to
the pictures he had submitted.
Mr. Rene Ramero, landscape architect, 17632 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, working from
the site plan explained that they were trying to maintain the grouping of 3 trees
in the right center of the property, but that some branches would have to be re-
moved. However, they would have problems with the 2 trees closest to the driveway
and one had been hit by lightning and uprooted and, as Mr. Asawa explained, was
resting on a limb making it dangerous. They also wanted to replace the two trees
closest to the driveway near Fairmont Boulevard and Santa Ana Canyon Road with
60-inch box trees placed closer to the street at the entry the same as with the
other 2 trees. Although they wanted to replace them with California peppers if
possible, they might not be available. If not, they requested that they be allowed
to replace them with something from the tree list included in the ordinance.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Lynn Buffington, 7055 Columbus Drive, Chairman of HACMAC, stated that over
the past year, HACMAC had an opportunity to look at a number of proposals from
Mr. Asawa's company regarding development of the subject site. They had worked
with him and tried to come up with a plan they felt would be compatible with the
community and also provide the development he wanted to accomplish. His most
recent request was for the removal of certain trees and in all other previous
requests, there was no mention that pepper trees were to be removed. After re-
view by HACMAC, they agreed with Mr. Asawa that the eucalyptus trees were damaged,
diseased and unsightly and should be removed, but they took exception to the fact
that he wanted to remove about 6 of the large pepper trees with that number de-
creased to 4. His reason was that there was a tremendous amount of grading that
would have to take place on the site, but the plan they looked at was preliminary in
nature and there did not seem to be a substantial differential in the pad elevation,
the buildings and the existing topography to warrant removal of the trees. HACMAC
unanimously approved the removal of the eucalyptus trees, but requested the preser-
vation of the pepper trees. When the matter went to the Planning Commission, they
were under the impression that grading was going to impact the trees greatly and
he believed that was the basis for their decision to approve removal of the trees.
It appeared now that the grading was not the issue, but it was a matter of trying
to conform to the plan that Mr. Asawa developed for the property.
Mr. Buffington stated that HACMAC therefore urged the Council to urge the applicant
to look at a possible redesign of the project. They did not want diseased or damaged
trees to remain, but they appeared to be quite healthy. Relative to replacement,
no one present would live to see those replacements the size of the existing trees.
The Canyon people were very sensitive to tree removal and in the past 6 months, un-
fortunate incidents had occurred where large stands of trees had been removed be-
cause of situations beyond the control of the City. However, some developers
working with very stringent tree preservation requirements placed upon them were
able, through creative planning, to work around the trees and preserve the natural
beauty existing in the area and still develop their property in 8 Profitable manner.
78-1563
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
In concluding, Mr. Buffington stated that HACMAC was under the impression from
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer that the location of the driveway onto Fairmont was
not acceptable to him and if it were moved further south, it probably would not
impact the trees. As well, a redesign of the entrance off Rio Grande might also
be able to preserve the other two trees in question.
Mr. Gowa stated the presentation he wanted to make was that of a citizen and a
HACMAC member since he had the same views in either case. He was very concerned
with a number of items, the first being the preservation of a heritage due to the
fact that the Peralta Adobe was located on the property and without pepper trees,
it would be extremely compromised as far as history was concerned. Further, the
developer spoke about replacing the trees with 60-inch box trees. He pointed out
that the existing trees on the property were probably in excess of 100 years old
and it was getting to the point where their children were never going to see a
mature tree. He also explained that at the time Mr. Asawa presented the item
before HACMAC, he was quite vocal about the fact that he wanted to remove the
trees. After negotiating in front of HACMAC and the entire group, an agreement
was reached which would allow Mr. Asawa to remove the eucalyptus trees if he would
preserve all of the pepper trees with the exception of the one that was falling
down and Mr. Asawa stated he would abide by that agreement. Unfortunately when he
went before the Planning Commission, he took the exact opposite stand. Mr. Gowa
emphasized that he felt pepper trees were part of California's heritage and a
resource that was irreplaceable. He maintained that the center could be designed
around the trees since this particular stand was one of the last few large pepper
tree stands remaining in the Santa Ana Canyon, and as a citizen, he would be very
upset if they were removed.
Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, Secretary of HACMAC, stated that they had
met with the Orange County Historical Commission and they were concerned they
could not be present today, because of a conflicting meeting, to speak about the
preservation of the adobe house and the trees. They felt without pepper trees,
the adobe would stand bare on the site and there were also questions relative to
the land around the adobe as to what belonged to the Historical Commission and what
belonged to Mr. Asawa. Relative to the 2 trees that would be removed near the adobe
and proposed driveway, Mr. Singer told them there was no way there could be an open-
ing 110 feet from the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road and that the Code called
for 30 feet. The Historical Commission would support the latter because they wanted
to save the trees around the adobe. With their limited budget, any landscaping was
going to have to be acquired through donations and they wanted the Council to con-
sider that in their absence. HACMAC mindtes reflected that Mr. Asawa agreed if
they went along with the removal of the eucalyptus trees, he would redesign the
rest of the site to save the pepper trees and that was the last they had heard of
the matter until today.
Mrs. Ethel Gowa, 531Paseo de Luna, stated that the Historical Commission had
$75,000 appropriated for the restoration of the adobe house. The Commission was
planning to run buses to the site and as it was now, there would be no room for
the buses. She was of the opinion that there should first be a meeting with the
County before proceeding to determine exactly what property belonged to the County
and what belonged to Mr. Asawa. With ingress and egress as planned, buses could
not get to the site and if there was going to be a slope, it was going to make it
difficult for old people and school children as well.
78-1564
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hank Rivera, 6283 Rio Grande, stated that his house was located directly be-
hind the development. Something that had not been addressed was the fact that
the buildings could be planned differently and relocated on the site. He continued
that as a safety specialist, he dealt with traffic control for his company. With
a street as travelled as it was destined to be, it was not feasible for Fairmont
to have a 90-degree angle turn into a shopping development and usually a tapered
driveway was constructed. He also questioned why the driveway off Rio Grande
would have to be aligned with Donna. The question then was, should trees be
removed because they were in the way of the street and buildings, or should the
buildings and street be moved to preserve the trees. In his mind, pepper trees
were synonymous with California, and he felt strongly that every one of the trees
should be preserved. He also maintained that although he had not made a personal
analysis of the trees to see how far they were diseased, they never addressed
the fact that diseases could be treated. The only thing being developed at the
present time was building number 1 because 3 separate developments were involved.
The foregoing, therefore, should be considered before making a determination with
the possibility that the planned buildings could be moved and relocated.
Before concluding, Mr. Rivera stated that he had 3 other concerns not relative to
the specimen tree removal which he wanted to speak to for the record and for Mr.
Asawa's consideration.
(1) He was concerned relative to his lot, the location of which he pointed to
from the posted map. He explained that in that location, they were all view lots
and one of the buildings in the proposed development was close to his property.
He wanted some assurance that it would not encroach upon his view or be at his
pad level. (2) He wanted to know if down-lighting was planned because he did not
want to see a street light or guarded lights installed such as those at the Albert-
son's shopping center that would cause it to be like daylight 24 hours a day.
(3) He had just dug for a pool and explained that his property was located on the
top of the ridgeline and it dropped down. He wanted to know at what point of
development the slopes were going to be planted.
Mrs. Dione Hesketh stated that SACPOA opposed the project and the tree removal
plan.
Mr. Asawa submitted the report from the landscape architect which addressed
several things, one being that the two trees off Fairmont would be placed in
a well approximately 3.5 feet and would not be at ground level. Also, the site
owned by the County did have an easement to Fairmont Boulevard and the reason
why Ric Development located the driveway where they did on Fairmont was to
eliminate a dual driveway system, one for the County and one for the development.
They took the Historical Society into consideration and attempted to cooperate in
every way and were also cognizant of the bus situation and related items. Thus,
they were not insensitive to the historical site. Considering the overall plan,
trees were not going to be removed indiscriminately, the entire project was one
development and would not be cut up piecemeal. The site plan had taken a great
deal of study and the present plan was the sixth revision.
Mayor Seymour stated that the tree removal plan he had before him indicated a total
of 6 pepper trees that were going to be removed now reduced to 4. Discussion then
followed between the Mayor, the HACMAC members and Mr. Asawa for purposes of clarifi-
cation relative to the specific trees Mr. Asawa wished removed (identified as Nos.
4 and 5, Fairmont Boulevard site, and Nos. 6 and 7, Rio Grande site).
78-1565
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Discussion then followed between some Members of the Council and Mr. Asawa rela-
tive to alternatives to preclude the removal of any of the pepper trees. Council-
woman Kaywood stated if the County was not concerned about where the easement would
be located, Tree Nos. 4 and 5 could be saved. Mr. Asawa agreed that was an alterna-
tive. Mayor Seymour pointed out that it was now a matter of getting down to only
one pepper tree, that being Tree No. 6 which was next to the fallen tree that Mr.
Asawa claimed was in the path of the entrance in lining up with Donna. He stated
that the specimen tree removal plan would be approved if Mr. Asawa could tell the
Council that he could find a way around that one tree.
Mr. Asawa was of the opinion that moving the location of the driveway would create
a problem and it would be very difficult to redesign to get the circulation, parking
and building layout and that was the reason why the driveway was situated as it was.
He maintained that there would still be a problem if the Council agreed to some
allowance on parking because any change in plans would relate to the whole project.
Mayor Seymour stated he would then vote against the tree removal plan because the
piece of property involved was large enough so that Mr. Asawa could move something
around to save one tree since his plan was not "in cement".
Mr. Asawa was of the opinion that they had compromised everything in their power
in order to go along with the situation.
Mayor Seymour stated if he could not work around that one tree and needed relief
from parking requirements, he would not be opposed to giving relief from a couple
or three parking spaces; Mr. Asawa indicated it could be more like 10 or 12 spaces.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, 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 on the basis that
there would be no signignificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental im-
pact due to the approval of this negative declaration since the Anaheim General
Plan designates the subject property for commercial, limited land uses commensurate
with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the pro-
posal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the negative declara-
tion substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning
Department. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour moved to approve the specimen tree removal plan excluding all
pepper trees except tree no. 7 which was the fallen tree. Councilman Kott seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 78-3A: In accordance with application filed
by Etchandy Brothers Farms, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a
portion of a frontage road located on the east side of Tustin Avenue, north of
the Riverside Freeway, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-519 duly published in the
Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
78-1566
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -November 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Report of the City Engineer dated September 20, 1978, was submitted recommending
approval of the abandonment, unconditionally.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the proposed abandonment;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition
of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements
for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from
the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-750 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 78-3A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-750: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF. THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF THAT CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET LOCATED
GENERALLY EAST OF TUSTIN AVENUE AND SOUTH OF LA PALMA. (78-3A)
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-750 duly passed and adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, 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 or denied'and
referred to staff (g):
a. Claim submitted by Debbie Owens for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of a fall on Anaheim Stadium property on or about October 1, 1978.
b. Claim submitted Leonard Spivak for damages purportedly sustained as a result
of actions by Anaheim Police on or about October 16, 1978.
c. Claim submitted by Allstate Insurance on behalf of Sharon Nahay, insured,
for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of an accident involving
a City-owned vehicle on or about September 26, 1978.
d. Claim submitted by Ray E. and Audrey J. Graybeal for property damages pur-
portedly sustained as a result of a water pipe leaking at 247 Sagamore Street
on or about October 14, 1978.
e. Claim submitted by Roy C. and Rachael Underwood for property damages purportedly
sustained as a result of a City vehicle backing onto claimant's property on or
about October 9, 1978.
78-1567
City Hal.!.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
f. Claim submitted by Mrs. Betty Jo Point for her son, Jeffrey P. Point, a minor,
for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of a slip and fall at
Anaheim Stadium on or about October 1, 1978.
g. Claim submitted by Josephine and Joseph Palumbo, dba Enchanted Cottage,
for damages purportedly sustained as a result of discriminatory treatment
accorded the Enchanted Cottage concerning relocation payments and space during
September, 1978.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of November 6, 1978.
b. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of October 24, 1978.
c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of November 8, 1978.
3. 179: REQUEST FOR CANCELLATION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS: Request by Central
Baptist Church of Orange County for cancellation of deed restrictions on prop-
erty known as the "Church Tract", located at 227 North Magnolia Street, was
submitted and approved, as recommended by the City Attorney and City Engineer
in memorandum.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 78R-751
through 78R-754, 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-751: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Robert L.
Citron, County Tax Collector; James E. Hazell, et ux.; Elden W. Bainbridge;
William Blair Armstrong, et al.; Stadium Properties; James S. Reese, et ux.;
Bernard J. Huppert; William L. Schafer, et al.; Margaret R. Sullivan)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-752: 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: HIDDEN CANYON
PUMPING STATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 51-619-7105-92180-32420;
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 January 4, 1979, 2:00 P.M.)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-753: 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: PERALTA CANYON
PARK SPORTS FIELD AND PARKING LOT LIGHTING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
16-805-7103-0000; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFI-
CATIONS 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 January 4, 1979, 2:00 P.M.)
78-1568
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-754: 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: ORANGEWOOD AVENUE SEWER IMPROVE-
MENT, HARBOR BOULEVARD TO WEST STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-
6325-0020. (Peter C. David Company, contractor)
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-75! through 78R-754, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 10178: Developer, R.P.I. Construction Company of
Newport Beach; tract located on RM-4000 zoned property on the north side of
Savanna Street, west of Knott Avenue, consisting of a one-lot, 9-unit condominium.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed sub-
division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent
with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No.
10178, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated November 14,
1978. MOTION CARRIED.
170: ORDINANCE NO. 3942: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3942 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3942: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION 17.06.
180.030 TO CHAPTER 17.06 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
GRADING OF LOTS. (final lot drainage certification)
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. 3942 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3943 THROUGH 3945: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos.
3943 through 3945, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
149: ORDINANCE NO. 3943: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.272 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO
SUBSECTION .180 RELATING TO NO PARKING DURING SCHOOL HOURS. (Vallejo Drive, both
sides, from Loma Linda Street to Western Avenue)
78-1569
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
108: ORDINANCE NO. 3944: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4,
CHAPTER 4.31, SECTION 4.31.040.020 RELATING TO FIGURE MODEL STUDIO ESTABLISHMENTS.
(relating to application fee)
ORDINANCE NO. 3945: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-1, CL)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3943 through 3945, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
149: ORDINANCE NO. 3946: Councilwoman Kaywood asked if all residents and
affected parties had been notified relative to the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Dick Jones, partner, Jones-Peterson Associates, 218 East Broadway, stated
that he understood there was a provision in the proposed ordinance which would
enable City staff to administrate the ordinance if it were found to be practical
to allow parking for some areas for businesses such as his. If it was possible,
he would favor allowing staff to provide that parking.
Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3946 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3946: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190, SUBSECTION .690 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (No parking at any time on Broadway Street,
both sides, from Dawn Street to 200 feet west of Anaheim Boulevard; on the north
side, 150 feet west of Anaheim Boulevard to 200 feet east of Harbor Boulevard;
on the south side, from 150 feet west of Anaheim Boulevard to Helena Street.)
ORDINANCE NOS. 3947 AND 3948: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 3947 and
3948 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3947: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
Tt{E ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-4(1), CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 3948: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (67-68-100(4), CL)
105: HILL AND CANYON BRANCH LIBRARY LOCATION: Councilman Overholt stated as
Liaison to the Library Board, he attended their meeting the previous day where
many matters were discussed, amongst those being that the Board was favorably
disposed to possibly exchanging the present library site in the Hill and Canyon
area with a site on the peripheral land around the golf course if the Golf Course
Commission felt it had some merit. They were attempting to schedule a joint meeting
with the Commission to express their views in conjunction with that possibility.
If a site was eventually decided upon, he anticipated some strong urging from the
78-1570
C.ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Library Board to do whatever possible to get plans drawn for the library even
though funding was not available at this time. However, funding for the plans
would put the Library Department, the Board and the City in a position to make
application for funding perhaps from other sources if and when those sources
became available. The Library Board would then feel that the City would be keeping
faith with the people living in that area to provide library services to them at
the earliest possible date consistent with Proposition 13 and the constraints
therein.
NATIONAL GOLD MEDAL WINNER AWARDS DINNER: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that
three Council Members attended the awards dinner held in recognition of the
Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department becoming the National Gold Medal
Winner for excellence. She was very proud to have been present on such an
occasion and noted that two City Departments had received national awards for
excellence (Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department and Public Works Department)
within a 3-week period.
HALLOWEEN COMMITTEE WRAP-UP LUNCHEON: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that she
had attended the Halloween Committee wrap-up luncheon on Friday, November 17,
1978, and delivered the letter on behalf of the entire City Council to Mr. Herb
Leo, commending the Committee for the excellent job they had done on this year's
Halloween Festival and Parade. The enthusiasm and support was outstanding not
only from the Council, but also from local business people and residents as well.
The momentum had carried forward to where the Committee was expected to choose
new chairman this wee~ with meetings already planned for next year's event.
COMMENDATION TO RAMS NEGOTIATING TEAM: Councilman Roth personally commended
Mayor Seymour, Councilman Overholt, City Manager Talley, the Board of Trustees
of the Magnolia School District and all involved in bringing the Rams to Anaheim.
An outstanding job was done and as a Councilman and resident, he appreciated all
of the effort and man-hours expended on behalf of the negotiating team in bringing
the agreements to fruition.
Mayor Seymour also expressed his appreciation for the entire Council's support
and patience over the course of negotiations, as well as their willingness to stand
together.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the entire negotiating team should have a
photograph taken together for posterity, relative to what she considered an un-
paralleled negotiating agreement.
120: COMPLAINT & PETITION - PORNOGRAPHIC MAGAZINES: Mayor Seymour stated that
he had received a complaint from a resident on Buttonwood Street'and a petition
signed by approximately 125 to 150 people with regard to the pornographic books
and magazines that were not only available in Tic-Toc and Stop 'N' Go Markets,
but also general supermarkets, liquor stores, etc., and places where minors
frequented. This material was displayed totally in view and easily available.
The complaint, backed up with the petition, was a request to the Council to do
something with existing City ordinances relative to pornographic materials to
preclude them from being publicly exposed within facilities or stores selling
that type of merchandise. He was very empathetic with their request.
78-1571
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to direct the City Attorney to make
recommendations relative to amending existing ordinances or take action to insure
that pornographic literature would not be displayed in stores and shops in Anaheim.
Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
106: BUDGET AMENDMENTS: Mayor Seymour stated that since Budget hearings in June
and subsequent hearings had now been completed and final amendments made to the
document, he wanted to receive a copy of the Budget as fully amended or a report
that would document and cover the changes made from the printed Budget originally
presented up to the time it was fully amended and approved.
After a brief discussion, City Manager Talley stated he would provide all Council
Members with a copy of the existing printed Budget document, and incorporating all
of the amendments made to it.
RECESS: By general consent, Council recessed to 7:00 P.M. (6:02 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order all Council Members being
present. (7:00 P.M.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norm Priest
NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION MANAGER:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST:
SENIOR STAFF ASSISTANT:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
Lisa Stipkovich
Kate Kocher
Lloyd Trapp
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
174: PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FIFTH YEAR PROGRAM:
Submitted by the City of Anaheim, Community Development Department, to receive
citizen imput and approve a preliminary budget for the Community Development
Block Grant Fifth Year Program.
Mr. Priest submitted the report prepared by the Community Development Department
on the Fifth Year Community Development Block Grant Program, funding for which has
been allocated at $2,004,000. Mr. Priest commented that the program is set up this
year so as to go more deeply into citizen participation. Mr. Priest noted that
this additional participation by the public will place an additional burden on the
Community Services Board who will assist in monitoring the program. He pointed
out that the Community Services Board has recommended some modifications to the
recommended budget and these will be presented during the hearing.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council regarding the proposed
budget for the Fifth Year Community Development Block Grant Program.
Mrs. Paula Marteson, 1158 Post Street, Housing Coordinator at the Dayle McIntosh
Center for the Disabled, advised that she is addressing all HCD meetings in the
County to make those in charge aware of the needs of the disabled community. She
explained that there are currently some 220,000 disabled persons in Orange County
78-1572
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
and 56,000 of these individuals suffer from conditions limiting their mobility
within the environment. She advised that for individuals downed to a wheelchair
or with some orthopedic aid, these mobility restrictions present a problem in
securing appropriate housing.
Mrs. Marteson advised that their proposal is to request the City Council consider
setting aside some of the Community Development Block Grant Funds for a survey
in the City of the existing apartments and rental homes to determine the accessi-
bility of these units to wheelchairs and their potential for modification to be-
come accessible for wheelchairs. She advised that her group has attempted to ask
apartment managers to complete this type of survey voluntarily without success.
She stressed that this could be accomplished using student interns at minimal
cost. She reported that the City of Fullerton through the use of the Work Study
Program at Cai State Fullerton, did use student interns to conduct such a survey,
but they are so far the only city in the County which has done anything along these
lines. A copy of the proposal from the Dayle Mclntosh Center indicating the cost
of such a survey at $20,000 was submitted for consideration.
In response to Mayor Seymour's question as to what would be planned following the
survey, Mrs. Marteson explained that hopefully a portion of the City's Relocation
and Housing Rehabilitation Funds could be used as low-interest loans or grants to
complete the necessary modifications to make some homes and apartments accessible.
She advised that the modifications recommended are not extensive, but merely those
which would be sufficient to make the bathrooms accessible to the wheelchair. Most
of these clients have home-chore care assistants. She added that in terms of numbers
of dollars for modifications, that the cities of Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach
both recently approved similar projects for a survey costing $20,000 and budgets
of $40,000 for modifications. The County has also approved a program with larger
amounts.
Councilman Roth suggested that the current allowance provided by the Veteran's
Administration for modifications to properties to make them accessible be determined
as it would be a helpful guideline in establishing such a program.
Ms. Lisa Stipkovich outlined the process used to identify the neighborhood strategy
areas; first they reviewed the statistics provided by Real Estate Research Corpora-
tion to identify all of the low-income census tracts (defined as more than 50 per-
cent of the households being at or below 80 percent of median income which is
$17,600 for a family of 4). The housing and public improvement needs in these
areas were also identified; and a windshield survey of all these tracts was con-
ducted by staff. Through this process, they narrowed it down to 13 census tracts
which showed evidence of significant housing and public works decline. Neighbor-
hood hearings were conducted in the strategy areas so identified, following which
staff recommended that two tracts be dropped because there did not seem to be any
significant interest, nor did it appear there was a real need for public improvement
in these tracts following further conversations with the Public Works Department.
At the conclusion of this process, the staff came up with four neighborhood strategy
areas as identified in the application.
Ms. Stipkovich further summarized the citizen participation program used in connec-
tion with this Fifth Year CDBG Program, which included dissemination of 20,000
flyers, 1,000 posters, bilingual notices in both the Register and Bulletin of
78-1573
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
the neighborhood meetings, as well as in the Pennysaver. Two public hearings
have been held before the Community Services Board, and the Housing and Neighbor-
hood Preservation staff has also met with various City departments involved in
the process. It was after receiving all of this input that staff put together
a recommended budget based on all the input factors, plus the HUD and State
requirements and criteria. This recommended budget was presented to the Community
Services Board at a hearing with opportunity for public comments, and the Board
made further recommendations for changes to this budget.
Ms. Jan Billings, Chairperson of the Community Services Board, briefed the Council
on the changes recommended by that group to the proposed Fifth Year CDBG Budget.
Basically, the Board was of the opinion that a comparison of the percentages allo-
cated to housing and public improvements, reflects a heavier proportion going
toward public improvements. Ms. Billings pointed out that according to last
year's figures, there were 17,000 families in Anaheim requiring some housing assis-
tance and that the 34 percent allotment shown for housing does not represent a
clear picture of how much is actually useable, since the administrative costs are
figured into that percentage. They, therefore, recommended that 41 percent of
the total be allocated toward housing.
In the public improvement area, they further recommend that some of these funds
be used to provide two lighted handball courts at Pearson Park. The basic changes
recommended by the Community Services Board are a decrease in public improvements
(alleys) of $155,000, and an increase in park improvements of $20,000 and housing
activities by $135,000.
Ms. Billings acknowledged that citizen participation is very poor even under the
best of circumstances and pledged that the Community Services Board would assist
in the setting up of neighborhood councils to improve this ~area of communications.
She noted that the character of some of the input received urging the use of these
funds for alley improvements and street lights is representative of just one seg-
ment of the community.
Councilman Roth stated that he viewed the recommended transfer of $155,000 from
alleys and into parks and housing with a great deal of interest, since in his
experience the majority of public input and the most vocal has been related to
these alley improvements. He questioned why the Community Services Board recom-
mended a reduction in that area when it is apparently a high priority on the part
of the people.
Ms. Billings stated that while citizen input is very important, it is not the
only thing to consider and they have tried to temper their recommendation to con-
sider those who are essentially unrepresented and who need housing assistance.
She noted that those who are most vocal are those who have something concrete.
Councilman Roth stated that in his opinion the alley improvements are a very
high priority item and one which has been promised to these people for a long
time. He questioned how the Community Services Board could justify this recom-
mendation.
78-1574
qity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour interjected that what might be missing from the statistics is the
experience of staff in the Housing and Neighborhood Preservation Division, in
dealing with the demands for housing. He also noted that a circulation of flyers
would be received mostly by property owners who already have their housing problems
solved and their attention then turns to the alley repair or street light replace-
ment.
Relative to the recommendation on lighted handball courts at Pearson Park, Mayor
Seymour stated that it was his understanding the City and the Anaheim Union High
School District were jointly attempting to rehabilitate or put in some handball
courts at Anaheim High School.
Mr. Lloyd Trapp advised that the City and High School District did cooperate to
build four courts at Anaheim High School and four each at Dale and Sycamore Junior
High Schools in conjunction with the two new gymnasiums, the latter four will be
lighted courts.
Mrs. Margaret Sullivan, member of the Community Services Board, agreed with Ms.
Billings' comments and stressed that she is in favor of assistance for the senior
citizens. She cautioned against spending a great deal of money on Pearson Park
because many people will not use the park because it is excessively dirty. With
regard to alley improvements, Mrs. Sullivan stressed that many alleys, particularly
in her neighborhood, collect a great amount of water and drain very poorly. Mrs.
Sullivan referred to the Housing Rehabilitation Program administered by the City
last year and asked whether anyone has ever gone back to evaluate those homes to
see what they look like a year or so later.
Mayor Seymour agreed with her last suggestion and suggested to staff that they
undertake to review the rehabilitated homes as this would be most informative.
Mr. Jim West, 1537 West Kimberly Avenue, member of the Community Services Board,
advised that he moved into Anaheim this past summer as the result of a low-interest
home loan without which he would not have been able to purchase a home at current
prices. He voiced the opinion that the rationale behind the Community Services
Board recommendation is that there are a lot of individuals living in apartments
both in Anaheim and other communities who would very much like the opportunity to
buy and live in a place such as Anaheim, but are unable to because of the cost.
He did not think the input received at the public meetings was truly representative
of this group of people and this is why the Board felt some priority should be
directed toward funds for acquisition and low-interest home improvement loans.
There being no further persons who wished to address the Council, Mayor Seymour
closed the public hearing.
During Council discussion, Mayor Seymour indicated his willingness to support the
Community Services Board recommendation at this time, however he remarked, if prior
to or during the remaining public hearing on the proposed budget there is an outcry
from the public regarding the need for these alley improvements, he would be amenable
to restoring the funds for alley improvements to the original amount.
MOTION: Mayor Seymour thereupon moved that the proposed budget the Community
Development Block Grant Fifth Year Program be approved in accordance with the
Community Services Board recommendations and that the percentages for the Sixth
and Seventh Year Programs be approved, as recommended by the Community Services
Board as well. Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
78-1575
C.~ty Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Under discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that at the first and second
public hearing on use of the Community Development Block Grant Funds, the public
input which stays with her was the demand for alley improvements. She stated
that she felt it is critical that these be improved and commented that such an
improvement would serve the whole community, whereas the housing assistance
services only one family at a time. She also observed that this problem becomes
worse and worse and becomes more expensive to repair as each year passes. She
stated that the City is just now getting around to repair of alleys which are
40 years old, and this is not conducive to a good neighborhood either.
Mayor Seymour pointed out that the Fifth Year Program, even with the modifications
suggested by the Community Services Board, will still contain $350,000 for alley
repair; and that the decision made by the Council this evening is not final and
can be modified at the next public hearing, prior to the preparation of the final
application. Further, Mayor Seymour reminded the Council that it was just three
weeks ago that they had directed the City Attorney, Planning staff and Planning
Commission to assist them in coming up with a positive approach to the current
outcry for rent control. If the Council is serious about providing housing
assistance to those on fixed incomes and in the lower income category, they must
seriously consider the Community Services Board proposal.
Councilman Overholt stated that he too shares the concerns expressed over the
status of the alley improvement program, but would support the motion to approve
the proposed budget as modified by the Community Services Board at this time. He
also indicated that if there is a great amount of citizen input indicating a high
interest in alley repairs, he would at the later hearing support a reduction of
the housing acquisition budget of $200,000 recommended by staff, and to increase
the alley improvement fund by that amount. He noted that alley improvement is
a community program and if the need is so great, ultimately these improvements
will serve the larger number of people. He added that he would be much more in-
clined, in the Housing and Neighborhood Preservation Program, toward rehabilita-
tion than acquisition and demolition, as it is less costly and serves more people.
Mr. Priest explained that it is not their intent in the Housing and Neighborhood
Preservation Program to go into these target areas as a total clearance project.
They recognized that there are sometimes one or two homes which they determine
must be removed because their condition is beyond repair and a detriment to
attracting private capital into the area. The main thrust of the program is
toward neighborhood rehabilitation.
Also discussed by the Council was enforcement of Code requirements regarding
numbers of individuals living in one housing unit, and Mr. Hopkins describ'ed the
difficulties in this type of zoning enforcement, noting particularly that it takes
a lot of personnel to be effective.
The Mayor called for a vote on the foregoing motion. Council Members Kaywood and
Roth voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
78-1576
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 21, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the
public hearing on the Community Development Block Grant Fifth Year Program was
continued to the meeting of December 19, 1978, at 3:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into
Executive Session. (8:30 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (9:55 P.M.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Kott seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 9:55 P.M.