1977/04/05 77-375
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 10:00 A.M,
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular
session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour (arrived 10:10 a.m.), Kott,
Roth and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD: Townsend, White, Stanton, Anderson, Keesee
and Keifer
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD: Haynie
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIVISION:
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIVISION:
SPECIAL COUNSEL:
SPECIAL COUNSEL:
Darrell Ament
Bob Erickson
Wynn Peterson of R. W. Beck and Associates and
Frank Twohey of Wainwright and Ramsey
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.
Chairman Keesee called the Public Utilities Board to order.
175: UTILITIES - GENERATION - SAN ONOFRE UNITS 2 AND 3: Mr. Hoyt reported that
since last week's meeting with the Public Utilities Board (March 29, 1977), in re-
sponse to Council questions and concerns, the Utilities Department has provided
additional information and conducted a special meeting with the Public Utilities
Board last night which Councilman Seymour attended.
At Mr. Hoyt's suggestion, Mr. Peterson of R. W. Beck and Associates reviewed the
additional material in detail with the aid of slide transparencies. Specific areas
covered were: comparison of Southern California Edison imbedded debt costs versus
City of Anaheim imbedded debt costs in all projects in which the City is considering
participation; an explanation of Southern California Edison demand and energy costs
and what factors these cover and a comparison of similar costs for City of Anaheim
resources; and relative levels of power costs if power continues to be purchased
entirely from Southern California Edison. (Copies of the supplementary material
presented to Council, as well as the slides used in Mr. Peterson's presentation
are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
At the conclusion of Mr. Peterson's presentation, at the request of Councilman Seymour,
Mr. Bob Erickson of the Utilities Department, Management Services Division, pre-
sented a summary of his review of rates by cents per kilowatt hour charged by various
municipal and private utilities. He stressed in his remarks that there are a number
of problems in such rate comparisons, in that to get a true picture one would have
to consider the total objectives and philosophy of the particular utilities being
reviewed and their governing boards.
Councilman Kott pointed out that there is a return to local government and school
districts in the form of property taxes from private utilities which he felt should
be taken into consideration in these comparisons as a benefit received, and it was
estimated in response to this comment that the total amount of taxes which would be
77-376
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 10:00 A.M.
received by the City from its electric facilities at current tax rates would be
$100,000 per year, versus a $2.2 million transfer to the General Fund received
by the City as a result of operating its electrical distribution system.
Mr. Hoyt recalled that at the request of Mayor Thom, he conducted a study of
these comparative values and benefits in 1974 and discovered that the amount
the electric utility was paying to the City's General Fund was considerably in
excess, in a magnitude of more than two times as much as the City would receive
in ad valorem taxes from a private utility.
Councilman Seymour initiated discussion of the unlimited nuclear liability issue
and what impact this might have on the San Onofre Project, during which Mr. Hoyt
pointed out that this is an issue which is on appeal before the courts and would
most likely go all the way to the Supreme Court. In conjunction with this, Mr.
Hoyt noted that a portion of the Federal government's energy program calls for doing
away with the plutonium cycle of light water reactors and this would essentially
stop development of liquid metal in fast breeder reactors and stop the reprocessing
of spent fuel elements in the process. If this becomes government policy, the
nuclear fuel costs now being estimated could increase by up to 20%. He further
indicated that there is a possibility of an increase in insurance costs if the
Price/Andersen Act is declared unconstitutional.
In view of the current uncertainty regarding the question of unlimited liability,
Councilman Seymour inquired whether the Council's action, should it approve the
forwarding of a letter of intent to participate, might be reversible in the event
an unfavorable determination is made or the question impacts the project itself,
to which Mr. Hoyt gave an unqualified affirmative answer.
Mr. Hoyt elaborated that the Council's action to approve the letter would initiate
activities by the cities of Anaheim and Riverside and Southern California Edison
to review contracts, prepare agreements, and work with regulatory agencies to get
the cities included on the necessary licenses and produce the required environmental
impact report. Only after all these requirements are complete will a binding agree-
ment regarding the City's participation and ownership be executed, and it would be
after that agreement has been signed that the City would not be able to back out
of the arrangement without some costs.
In further response to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Hoyt described the process which
would be employed by the City in any bonding for the $51 million necessary to
participate in San Onofre Project; namely that the City would prepare a financial
statement disclosing everything about the City and the San Onofre Project; the
City would most likely employ R. W. Beck and Associates to prepare a letter to be
included indicating the financial feasibility of the project; hold national meetings
in New York and Los Angeles and sell the bonds at competitive bids, with Council
making award to the bidder with the lowest interest rate. The interest rate would
be determined by the market at the time the bonds are sold. Most likely, for such
a large sum of money the bonds would be broken into two or three separate issues;
the first being for $25 to $30 million.
Mr. Twohey concurred with Mr. Hoyt's explanation and added that the current muni-
cipal bond rate is in pretty good shape and that all calculations have heretofore
been made assuming a rate of 6½%. Mr. Twohey felt the City could take an even high-
er rate and still stay within the computations. Further he reported that the nuclear
issue does not appear to be of concern in the financing of nuclear generating facili-
ties.
77-377
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Seymour remarked that the City does not presently have a Fixed Asset
Accounting System although plans and preparations are currently in motion to
install same and questioned how this might affect the City's bond rates.
Mr. Twohey was of the opinion that this would have a minor effect, if any, and
that it is doubtful the City would ever recoup the $225,000 spent on instal].a-
tion of a Fixed Asset Accounting System to obtain an unqualified opinion on its
financial statement through bond rates. He suggested that the accounting system
might be of more value to the City in other areas as he has never been able to
recognize any difficulty with a qualified opinion on Anaheim's accounts in the
bond market.
Mr. Hoyt pointed out that the system is even more critical when the City tries to
bond for its municipal water system in that Arthur Young & Company would not even
render an opinion on the water utility.
Mayor Thom called Council's attention to the issue at hand, i.e., whether or not
the Council will authorize the issuance of a letter of intent to participate in
San Onofre Units 2 and 3.
Councilman Seymour stated he believes that the San Onofre Project is a very
sound investment for the bonding capacity approved by the voters of Anaheim. He
further explained that he is convinced that one of the unique advantages the City
of Anaheim has in entering the generation field is that its primary competitor,
Southern California Edison, is faced with skyrocketing fuel costs as a result of
the cost of oil and because their system is so geared to the burning of oil to
produce energy, whereas the City of Anaheim can capitalize on the cheaper methods
of producing electricity without having to carry the burden of past investment
decisions as Edison does.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the City Council authorize forwarding of the
letter of intent for the City of Anaheim to participate in San Onofre Units 2 and 3.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Under discussion of the motion, Councilman Kott explained that he has not been con-
vinced that he has before him information which would dictate that he vote for the
City to become part of this project in the best interest of the taxpayers of the
community. He remarked that he has not seen any guarantee from R. W. Beck and
Associates that if the City invests the $51 million that what the charts and tables
show will actually come true. He commented that R. W. Beck and Associates made
projections also regarding lower electric bills for the consumer prior to the Pro-
position A (electrical generation bonds) election and these projections have not
come true.
In response to Councilman Kott, Councilman Seymour pointed out that it is difficult
if not impossible, for anyone to provide information at any time that is going to
absolutely guarantee some specific event to occur, and this is especially true in
the field of electrical generation. He further commented that the negative attitude
which has been conveyed by Councilman Kott relative to San Onofre is a carry over
of a negative attitude to the electrical generation bond issue which was approved by
the voters on a ratio of two to one. The approval of that bond issue directed the
City Council to seek out reasonable and hopefully profitable ways of involving the
City in generation of electricity and, in fact, to spend up to $150 million in this
endeavor. He recalled that at the March 29, 1977 joint meeting with the Public
77-378;
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5, 1977~ 10:00 A.M.
Utilities Board, Councilman Kott offered a motion, which was seconded by Mayor
Thom, to instruct the Public Utilities Board to get figures together regarding
the sale of the City's electrical distribution facilities and that this demon-
strates that their basic attitude is one of opposition to the City being involved
in the electrical business in any way, either distribution or generation. Council-
man Seymour pointed out that he too, if he were of that conviction, would also
oppose every generation project no matter what the data looked like and how much
of it there was.
Relative to the bond issue which promised savings, Councilman Seymour felt that
the public was not hood~ ~ked into voting for it, that according to the ballot
arguments, the savings promised were savings which would occur as a result of the
City's participation in generation projects, and since the City is not yet a partici-
pating member in any of the generating projects, the savings cannot be there, He
concluded that he feels the City has done an admirable job in maintaining rates
below or the same as Southern California Edison during this period prior to its
participation in generation.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that there is no question that Anaheim retail rates
were lower than Edison's for many years, but the times dictated something which had
never been foreseen in the cost of fuel. She felt that these decisions relative to
electrical generation projects are analogous to those decisions made by our prede-
cessors in California who had sufficient vision to construct the water distribution
system which enables the current populations to reside in Southern California,
Councilman Roth indicated support of the motion based on the necessity for the City
to be able to supply power to additional industrY, al growth and because of the po-
tential future annexations and development of 14,400 acres of land in the Hill and
Canyon area.
The foregoing motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom
MOTION CARRIED.
175: GENERATION - INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT BALLOT MEASURE: Councilman Seymour
introduced for discussion the subject of the Intermountain Power Project, reCalling
that it is his understanding this project will be formed by a partnership or Joint
powers arrangement with other utility companies and that the Joint powers partner-
ship so formed would then sell bonds, for which the City and citizens of Anaheim
would be responsible for payment, the amount estimated at $600 million~ He noted
that as he understands the proposal, voter approval to enter this project is not
necessary. However, he stressed that he feels anytime the City is contemplating
bonding or large capital improvements they should go to the voters for approval.
Therefore he questioned whether the Council would be interested in setting this
matter for a ballot decision in November 1977, inasmuch as the Council will be
asked to make the decision as to participation in the Intermountain Power Project
in approximately December, 1977.
77-3~79
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Thom indicated that he would never consider encumbering the rate payers of
the utility by such magnitude without their approval at an election. He commented
that he could see no potentiality of the City being able to fiscally survive in-
volvement in a business with such large capital requirements. He called attention
to the fact that these investments would provide the City with only 20% of its
energy demand needs and 80% would still have to be purchased from Southern Califor-
nia Edison.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City
Council directed the City Manager, City Attorney and Utilities Department to pre-
pare a ballot question to be placed before the voters in November of 1977 request-
ing approval of the City's entry into the Intermountain Power Project.
Under discussion of the motion, Councilwoman Kaywood inquired whether the City has
any money currently involved in this project to which Mr. Hoyt replied that the
City currently is continuing to pay the ongoing costs for studies associated with
Intermountain Power and Sundesert Projects as well as any other project in which
they might hope to become involved. Should the City withdraw and the project go
forward, then the monies spent on studies would be refunded to the City in time;
however, should the City Withdraw and the project not go forward, then the City
would have to write off an expense on the cost of participation. He commented that
even though the costs of participation are very high, according to the information
presented by the City's consultants this morning, there would still be a savings
for the City in the magnitude of 30%. He concluded that his recommendation in
these projects is based on the objective of providing a reliable power supply for
the City at the best available cost.
Prior to voting on the motion, Councilman Seymour wished to go on record that if
Council vote continues to be split with two dissenting votes as it was this date
on the San Onofre Project, that he would not support the Intermountain Power Pro-
ject unless it is placed before the electorate for their approval first.
Councilman Kott reiterated that he viewed these generation investments as a risk
and a gamble and in his opinion the risk was too great. In response to Councilwoman
Kaywood's remarks regarding the parallel between generation projects for future
electricity and the water projects accomplished in the past, he concurred with her
that in the case of water the present population would not have the systems but in
the case of electricity this is not so.
A vote was taken and the foregoing MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT - PUBLIC UTILIT%ES BOARD: On motion by Mr. White, seconded by Mr.
Kiefer, the Public Utilities Board adjourned. MOTION CARRIED. (11:40 A.M.)
ADJOURNMENT - CITY COUNCIL: Councilman Thom moved to adjourn. Councilman Seymour
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 11:40 A.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 19775 1:30 P.M.
77-380
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER-GOLF DIRECTOR: Thomas Liegler
CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR - ZONING: Annika Santalahti
AUDIT SUPERVISOR: Young Choi
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER: Ken Clements
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Warren Pittman of St. Michael's Episcopal Church gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: A Resolution of Condolence for the family of Mr. Richard A.
Morley, City Planning Commissioner, on his untimely passing was unanimously author-
ized by the City Council.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, minutes
of the Anaheim City Council regular meeting held February 15, 1977 were approved
subject to corrections. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive
the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver
of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title,
specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or
resolution. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $500,870.03, in accordance with
the 1976-77 Budget, were approved.
123: CEDRIC WHITE~ M.A.I.~ APPRAISAL SERVICES~ PROPOSED FIRE TRAINING FACILITY SITE
(SE corner of Oran~ewood and Rampart): Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-222
for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated March 8, 1977, from the City Engineer.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-222: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING A LETTER AGREEMENT WITH CEDRIC A. WHITE FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING 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:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-222 duly passed and adopted.
77-381
~City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
175: CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - WORK ORDER NOS. 1655 AND 1656 - AREA WIDE WATER IMPROVE-
MENT: (Community Development Block Grant Program) On motion by Councilman Kott,
seconded by Councilman Roth, Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $33,132 (credit)
to Work Order Nos. 1655 and 1656, Community Development Block Grant Program Area-
wide Water Improvement, Ace Pipeline Construction, Inc., contractor, was approved
as recommended in memorandum dated March 28, 1977 from the City Engineer, bringing
the contract price to $228,450.50. MOTION CARRIED.
123: GARCIA AND HUDSON AGREEMENT - FOOD AND BEVERAGE CONCESSION AT ANAHEIM HILI.$
MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE: (Termination of prior agreement and authorization of new
agreement with new concessionaire.) Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium-Convention Center-
Golf Director, briefed the Council on his report dated March 29, 1977, recommending
termination of the concessionaire agreement at Anaheim Hills Municipal Golf Course
with Yates Investment, Inc., at Mr. Yates' request and authorizing a new agreement
for the same services with John R. and Kathleen H. Garcia and Ruth C. Hudson.
At the request of Councilman Seymour, Mr. Liegler explained that the new agreement
with Garcia and Hudson was identical with that of Yates in terms of return to the
City, but it was streamlined to give the City a better control and greater voice
in the operation. Also, all past debts due by Yates were to be paid by the proposed
new concessionaires and all such contractual obligations due the City were made
part of the escrow between Yates and Garcia/Hudson.
Relative to the experience of the new concessionaires, Mr. Liegler explained that
they operated a successful restaurant in Garden Grove and that their desire and
intentions were compatible with the City's goals: (1) to provide a service to the
golfing community and, (2) provide a restaurant service to the area and community
of Anaheim Hills in terms of quality, service, fair prices and quantities with the
ultimate goal to make money. Mr. Liegler also explained that they were residents
of Anaheim Hills thus providing local representation.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Item No. XIV, Page 7, of the agreement relative
to material breach.
City Attorney Hopkins assured Councilwoman Kaywood that there was adequate protec-
tion for the City in the wording which applied both ways.
Mr. John Garcia stated that plans were to provide a nice restaurant with Mexican
food for the people of Anaheim Hills, opening early in the morning for breakfast,
serving lunch and dinner, eventually with a closing time of 10:00 or 11:00 p.m.
and extending the bar closing time to 2:00 a.m.. Mr. Garcia further explained
that he had been in the restaurant business since he was twelve years old and owned
Chico's restaurant in Garden Grove for two years. He would also be the cook at
Anaheim Hills. He did not plan to lose money on the undertaking and was enthusi-
astic and optimistic relative to its potential, and in the future plans to expand
the restaurant to make it a dinner house. He confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood
that he did plan to open for breakfast and lunch, starting at 7:00 a.m. and closing
at 8:30 p.m.. As business progressed, the hours would be extended as previously
explained. He clarified that the restaurant in Garden Grove would also be retained.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 77R-223 and 77R-224 for adoption as recom-
mended in memorandum dated March 29, 1977, from Tom Liegler. Refer to Resolution
Book.
77-382
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-223: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH YATES INVESTMENTS, INC., TERMINAT-
ING THE AGREEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 6, 1973, FOR THE OPERATION OF A FOOD AND BEVERAGE
CONCESSION AT THE ANAHEIM HILLS MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-224: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH JOHN R. GARCIA, KATHLEEN H. GARCIA,
AND RUTH C. HUDSON FOR THE OPERATION OF A FOOD AND BEVERAGE CONCESSION AT THE
ANAHEIM HILLS MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL Mk~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-223 and 77R-224 duly passed and adopted.
153: ANAHEIM POLICE ASSOCIATION - POLICE SAFETY EQUIPMENT: The Mayor stated
that a request had been received from a representative of the Anaheim Police Associa-
tion to address the Council on the matter of Police safety equipment. When he
became aware of their request, he contended it should be scheduled on the agenda.
However, this caused staff a problem. He preferred that the discussion as to whether
or not the Council would honor the request be taken up publicly and the subject of
the request privately. He stressed that he would never discuss privately whether
or not he would honor anyone's request to appear and wanted that aspect of the issue
resolved before discussing the subject matter in Executive Session. For clarification
purposes, as requested by Councilman Seymour, the Mayor read a letter dated March 28,
1977 received from Richard Goldman of Steven Warren Solomon, Inc., addressed to the
City Clerk regarding police safety equipment on behalf of the Anaheim Police Associa-
tion requesting the earliest date available on the Council agenda to hear the matter.
City Manager Talley interjected that what was not stated in the letter was the fact
that a separate letter was filed with his office demanding certain other things
that he would prefer discussing in Executive Session since he did not have an
opportunity to show the other letter to the Council. The ~nly purpose of the
Executive Session would be to assure the Council understood all the ramifications
of the request as far as staff was concerned before a decision was made.
The Mayor reiterated that two issues were, (1) potential litigation and, (2) the
request to address the Council. He would not discuss whether or not it was appro-
priate for the Anaheim Police Association to address the Council, such a request
was appropriate for everyone and he wanted that issue resolved in a positive,
affirmative fashion.
Councilman Seymour asked City Attorney Hopkins whether or not the matter could be
discussed in Executive Session and, if so, his opinion as to the proper course of
action.
Mr. Hopkins stated that the subject matter involved potential litigation and for
that reason he and the City Manager suggested it be heard in Executive Session
to review the entire matter for subsequent open discussion if the Council wished
to do so. Although anyone could address the Council, the subject matter was
77-3 8~
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
such that it would be advisable for the Council to first consider all of the
ramifications, which matter involved the Police Association's attorney and
possible resultant litigation.
Mr. Hopkins confirmed for Councilman Seymour that on this particular subject,
he was recommending it be discussed in Executive Session and subsequently a
decision made as to whether or not the Association would be permitted to address
the Council.
Council Members Seymour, Kaywood and Roth agreed that the matter should first be
discussed in Executive Session as recommended by the City Attorney.
Mayor Thom stated, for the record, that he would not take part in the Executive
Session.
128: AUDIT REPORT - ANAHEIM STADIUM PARKING LOT: Councilman Kott referred to
Audit report of the Anaheim Stadium parking lot dated February 25, 1977 (on file
in the City Clerk's Office) and questioned the City Manager relative to the basis
upon which a petty cash audit was initiated and further, took issue with some of
the recommendations made as being inappropriate for an Auditor to make as opposed
to the particular department head.
Mr. Talley explained that he tried to make the audit function as independent as
possible and requested that prudent judgment be used in verifying or checking
procedures having to do with every aspect of handling financial matters or dollars
in the City. In the case of the Petty Cash Fund, the auditors chose to examine
the six major funds which totaled 88% of all petty cash funds in the City and
amongst those included were the Library and the Stadium.
Relative to some of the recommendations made, Mr. Talley stated that C.P.A. and
Governmental guidelines, as well as Federal Revenue Sharing guidelines, supported
the view that an auditor should not only provide a balance sheet, but also point out
operational discrepancies or poor practices. When something incorrect was found
and in their estimation should be changed, a professional auditor had an obliga-
tion to point out such discrepancies.
Councilman Kott specifically referred to the situation where the Stadium parking lot
audit revealed a shortage of funds of $1,500, yet he could not find any reference
in the entire report indicating the department head was contacted to seek his
concurrence or input. He checked personally and did not find that any communica-
tion had taken place between those who performed the audit and the department head
nor had Mr. Liegler even seen the report.
Mr. Talley disagreed with Councilman Kott's assessment and explained that he talked
to Tom Liegter about the matter on two occasions. Although he may not have seen
the audit itself describing what was found, the conditions were described to him,
the matter discussed, and subsequently he (Liegler) filed proposed control procedures
with the City Manager's Office.
77-38'4
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Discussion followed revolving around the joint use of the vault in Anaheim Stadium,
and Mr. Talley explained for Councilman Kott that the problem was one of accounta-
bility. When money was stored in somebody else's vault where there was no direct
access to it but through another person, it was difficult to pinpoint the responsi-
bility if something was missing. The auditors recommended that the City look at
other alternatives. When the shortage was found, the supposition was made that it
occurred during the transfer of monies between two individuals and possibly the funds
were counted as parking funds instead of change funds. However, no one knew how
it occurred. The Angels had control of the vault and not the City. Therefore, the
auditor merely suggested that if the City had another way of safeguarding their
change fund, this would be more appropriate.
Councilman Kott thereupon asked Mr. Liegler his views surrounding the missing money
and the suggested method of control.
Mr. Liegler prefaced his explanation by stating he asked for on regular occasions
routine audits of all his divisions and that he welcomed City audits which were
beneficial for annual checkups. Normally, he received a copy of all the audits
for a first draft review. In this case, he did not receive a copy but he did meet
with Young Choi, Audit Supervisor, Kent Lem, Staff Auditor, and Ron Rothschild,
Senior Administrative Analyst, to review the problem. Since he had not seen the
audit report, professionally he could not comment. Since he did know the subject
matter, he wrote a commentary to the City Manager relative to the problem. He
explained that there were two on-going Change Funds which were accounted for on
a daily basis and the $1,500 shortage occurred on the final event of 1976. Mr.
Liegler further explained that after investigating the matter thoroughly with
Dick Benson, the Parking Lot Manager, it was concluded that the error was an
accounting one which occured between the last event in December and the time
the auditors found that the money was missing. He was of the opinion that one
safe and the safeguards used in the process were sufficient. By chance, the one
person responsible was sick and had to go home slightly early the night of the
last event in December. Therefore, the monies that could not get into the vault
were put into another safe and the next day were transferred to the main safe and
subsequently picked up and taken to the bank. Between that time and when the
audit was taken, the money evaporated. Mr. Liegler emphasized evaporated rather
than stolen because it was his strong opinion that no one associated with the
Angels or City staff, either part-time or full-time, would have taken the small
amount of money involved when the opportunity was ever-present to take substantial
amounts of money at any time although a check was made nightly.
In answer to Councilman Roth, Mr. Liegler explained that the dual use of the vault
by both the Angels and the City was a case of semantics and practicability and in
accordance with the City's agreement with the Angels, the City operated the Stadium
and the Angels maintained office space on a year-round basis, but the ticket office
was theoretically a responsibility of the City for all practical purposes. One
person was responsible for the vault, acting as a joint user for the Angels, the
City, and City tenants. This person was an Angel employee on a year-round basis
and a part-time City employee. Mr. Liegler considered it to be impractical to
have another vault for the small amount of use it would get.
Further discussion followed between Councilman Kott and City Manager Talley relative
to the benefits derived from audits such as those conducted.
77-385
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley then explained for Councilman Kott that it cost $480 to perform
the parking lot audit which he considered to be a minimum expense to audit
funds in excess of $20,000 which funds had not been audited for over three
years. He contended that substantial abuses could have been found and that
was the purpose of the audit.
Councilman Kott stressed that an audit should be meaningful and not harassment
to the department involved. He was of the opinion that the audit was an harass-
ment.
Mr. Talley agreed that an audit should be meaningful and if it appeared to be
harassment, he apologized. However, the intent was to continue to assure the
Council that the funds of the City were being used properly and correctly and
in those instances where it was found to be otherwise, it should be pointed out.
Mr. Liegler requested of the City Manager that the present discussion not deter
from his goals and requests to be audited on a regular basis.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Liegler stated that he did not consider
that any harassment was involved in the audit. His concern was that if items
relative to his divisions were involved, he would like to have known what the
accusations were beforehand and he would like to have seen that portion of the
report related to his divisions. As yet, he was not aware of exactly what the
report said.
Councilman Kott stated that he was not opposed to audits, but the department head
involved should be consulted if questionable practices evolved from the audit.
Mr. Talley agreed that Mr. Liegler should have seen that portion of the report re-
lating to his department rather than verbally discussing the matter with him and
the same was true of the Library Facility Petty Cash Fund. He indicated, however,
that a draft of the report was filed with both departments. He further maintained
that a good, well-rounded, consistent, and surprise audit schedule be followed in the
City to make sure the funds of the City were being treated in an appropriate manner.
Audit Supervisor, Young Choi, explained for Councilman Seymour that the department
heads received a copy of the draft report by mail distributed March 31, 1977, and
there was no major difference between the draft and the final. The final was sent
to the City Manager and the City Council only, but the draft report was discussed
with each department head. He reiterated there were no major differences and that
the recommendations were the same.
Further discussion followed between the Council and Mr. Choi relative to, and
clarifying, some of the recommendations that were made in the report.
Councilman Seymour concluded that the amount of time spent at the request of Council-
man Kott discussing the Petty Cash Audit was an attempt to glean something that was
not there. Instead, he saw a wedge being driven between the City Manager and depart-
ment heads, a matter which was of great concern to him. He maintained that if the
breakdown in communication or line of authority and responsibility deteriorated, the
City Council would be managing the City rather than the City Manager.
77-3~86
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour recalled when he took office in 1974, the first job of Arthur
Young was to take a look at the City's Budget and Audit Division, the result of
which was that the division was almost totally eliminated because audits were
not being performed. Since that time, restaffing of the Budget and Audit Division
had occurred, and Councilman Seymour commended them for their efforts in
auditing and asserted that they should be urged to continue the type of audit
practices being carried on in the past 1½ years. If any mistake was made in the
particular audit in question, it was that the report should have been handed to
the department head involved, who in turn should have had full approval or the
right to debate it or discuss it before the report was submitted to the Council.
He reiterated his concern with an attitude that appeared to challenge the City
Manager at every turn, discrediting him in the eyes of department heads, and con-
sidered that that type of attitude could only cause chaos within the administra-
tion of the City. If it continued, he predicted the City was going to be losing
some valuable department heads.
Councilman Kott stated that Councilman Seymour read a number of things into comments
that were made. He was not opposed to audits but he predicted that if the present
practices continued the City would, in fact, lose department heads as he had talked
to some of them. Councilman Kott then relayed a similar incident regarding an audit
of the Visitor's and Convention Bureau which resulted in the dismissal of an employee
who prepared the Council-requested audit which, in Councilman Kott's estimation, was
not an audit but a historical background and not what he wanted. When Councilman
Kott discussed the matter with the employee, indicating it was not the kind of audit
he was interested in, he (Kott) was told by the employee that if the original audit
as prepared was presented, he (employee) was not going to be around much longer. As
a subsequent meeting the City Manager admitted that he did say that to the employee
indicating that since he worked for him, he was required to do things the way he
was directed to do them. Councilman Kott continued that the employee was no longer
in the employ of the City.
Councilman Seymour asserted that as long as Anaheim had a Council/Manager form of
government, then it was the City Manager's responsibility to direct and be respon-
sible for the activities of the Auditor, as well as all City department heads and
all City employees. When the authority of the top Executive Administrative
Officer was usurped, chaos in the ranks would follow. He contended that if such
matters were constantly broached in public and queried in the foregoing fashion,
it was not only demeaning to the department heads involved, but also the City
Manager.
123: DAN L. ROWLAND & LE ROY ROSE & ASSOCIATES~ ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR CIVIC
CENTER PROJECT: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-225 for adoption as
recommended in memorandum dated April 1, 1977 from the City Attorney's Office.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-225: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES WITH DAN L. ROWLAND AND ASSOCIATES,
INC. AND LE ROY ROSE AND ASSOCIATES, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION THEREOF.
C~it~v Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-225 duly passed and adopted.
130: TERMINATION OF EXISTING CATV FRANCHISE WITH THETA CABLE OF CALIFORNIA:
77-387
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-226 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated March 28, 1977 from the City Attorney's Office. Refer to Reso-
lution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-226: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 73R-388 ADOPTING RULES, REGULATIONS OR SPECIFICATIONS
OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-226 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3677: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3677 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3677: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS.
3179 AND 3192 RELATING TO THE GRANT OF A CABLE ANTENNA TELEVISION FRANCHISE TO
THETA CABLE OF CALIFORNIA.
113: CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: City Attorney Hopkins
referred to his report dated April 1, 1977 resulting from a review of Conflict
of Interest Codes. It was determined under the California Political Reform Act
of 1974 that boards and commissions were not required to have such codes in that
their function was a purely advisory one with no final or dispositionary authority.
Deleted were the Housing, Golf Course, Cultural Arts, and Park and Recreation Com-
missions and the Community Services, Public Utilities and Library Boards. Mr. Hopkins
further explained that relative to City employees, his office had reviewed depart-
mental requirements previously specified and had gone as far as possible in elim-
inating employees not required to file codes. However, since changes were issued
quite frequently from the Fair Political Practices Commission releasing many of
their original stringent requirements, he would make another review of the matter.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Hopkins confirmed the codes were still neces-
sary for the Redevelopment Agency and the Housing Authority just as with the Council.
Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-227 for adoption as outlined in a report
dated April 1, 1977 from the City Attorney. Refer to Resolution Book.
77-388
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-227: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DELETING CERTAIN ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FROM RESOLUTION NOS. 76R-469,
76R-552, AND 76R-812 REQUIRING SAID BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO ADOPT A CONFLICT
OF INTEREST CODE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-227 duly passed and adopted.
105: APPOINTMENT OF REMAINING MEMBERS TO THE HILL AND CANYON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE (HACMAC): The remaining six appointments to the HACMAC were made as
follows: Councilman Kott appointed Mr. Tom Beckett, 714 South Camino Grande,
Mr. Hans Gowa, 531 Paseo De Luna, and Mr. Red Moltz, 791 Circulo Miro. Council-
man Roth appointed Mr. Ron Allen, 401 Paseo Real, Mr. Mike Perry, 4365 Alderdale
Avenue, and Mr. Jerry Walsh, 995 South La Salle Circle.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for five minutes. (2:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:00 P.M.)
174: PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM~ THIRD YEAR APPLI-
CATION AND THE HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN: To obtain the views and preferences of
residents on the proposed application for Third Year Community Development Block
Grant activities.
Executive Director, Norm Priest, explained that the proposed application was one
that had previously been brought before the Council on two occasions with the only
substantive changes being in the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) as explained in
his memorandum dated March 29, 1977.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard relative to the Third Year Application
for the Community Development Block Grant Program; there being no response, he
closed the public hearing.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-228 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated March 29, 1977 from the Executive Director, Community Development
Department. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-228: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND FILE AN APPLICATION FOR
A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOP-
MENT ACT OF 1974.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-228 duly passed and adopted.
77-389
City Halt~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1687: Application by Larry R. Smith,
to permit on-sale beer in a proposed billiard parlor and arcade on CL zoned pro-
perty located at 951 South Knott Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-51 reported that
the Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the
requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically
exempt from the requirement to file an EIR and further, recommended that Condition-
al Use Permit No. 1687 be denied.
The Planning Commission action was appealed by Thomas Ferruzzo, Attorney for the
Applicant, 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.
Miss Santalahti further clarified for Councilman Kott that liquor was being sold
in close proximity to the proposed billiard parlor and the Planning Commission
maintained that to permit on-sale beer would have a cumulative effect.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and desirous of
being heard.
Mr. Thomas Ferruzzo, 2333 North Broadway, Suite 20, Santa Ana, Attorney for the
Applicant, illustrated from a map the three different types of businesses in the
commercial block where the proposed billiard parlor was to be located, consisting
of a nursey school, and two similar establishments, The Sting and The French
Quarter, both with nightclub atmospheres. The building adjacent to the French
Quarter was the location of the proposed family billiard parlor with requested
beer license. Mr. Ferruzzo also elaborated on the surrounding uses and he was
of the opinion that there would be no prejudice to anyone in permitting on-sale
beer in the billiard parlor. He also considered the billiard parlor to be a
cushion between the other two establishments and the nursey school, which establish-
ments were not conducive to a family-type atmosphere. He stated that there would
be hardship to the billiard parlor if they had to compete without a beer license
not only with adjacent businesses, but also other billiard establishments in
Anaheim who had an on-sale beer license. He also explained that neither the nursery
school nor the bureau which licensed them had any objection to the proposed adjacent
use.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Ferruzzo stated that the billiard parlor
would be used mainly by youth 14 to 18 years old. Further, their intent was not
to sell beer with food, but in the form of a refreshment incidental to the billiard
parlor. Although they could sell beer to take out depending on the type of license
acquired, it was not their intent nor would they do so; it would be for their
patrons on the premises.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak ~ither in favor or in opposition, there
being no response, he closed the public hearing.
77-390
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION: Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon offered a resolution denying Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1687 based on the Police report relative to existing police
problems, resultant problems that would be created outdoors because take-out beer
would not be prohibited, and the possible detriment to children. The resolution
failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott, Roth and Thom
Councilman Seymour explained that he voted "No" because there was no justification
for compounding the sale of beer adjacent to a nursery school even though it was
permitted in the two existing establishments.
The Mayor stated that he could not deny the conditional use permit for the proposed
use particularly when the petitioner's neighbors have a like use as well as other
businesses in the City. Although he preferred that there be no nursery school next
door, if they did not object, he would find it difficult to object.
In answer to Councilman Kott, Miss Santalahti clarified that the Police Department
made a comment in their report to the Planning Commission on the police problems
in the existing two facilities. Their contention was that the proposed use might
also attract such problems.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-229 for adoption granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 1687 subject to the following Interdepartmental Committee recom-
mendations.
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
2. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale,
lease, or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject
property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be
recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
and 2.
4. That Condition No. 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the
commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the
time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from
date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commis-
sion and/or City Council may grant.
5. That Condition Nos. 1 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building add zoning inspections.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-229: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1687.
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
77-3.91
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kott, Roth and Thom
Kaywood and Seymour
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-229 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2913: Application by Cai-American Income Property
to establish an auto and boat repair facility on CL zoned property located at the
southeast corner of Lincoln and State College Boulevard with code waiver of per-
mitted uses.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-64 recommended that
the subject property be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environ-
mental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and, further recommended that Variance No. 2913 be denied.
The Planning Commission action was appealed by Peter F. Smeets, Attorney for the
Applicant, 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.
Mr. Peter F. Smeets, 500 South State College Boulevard, Attorney for the Applicant,
spoke to the reasons why his client's petitions for variance was denied by the
Planning Commission. He emphasized, however, that commercial tenants of the shop-
ping center wherein his client's business was located had no objections at all and
the surrounding commercial use was in no way hampered by the auto and boat repair
facility.
Relative to the surrounding residential area and the objection raised by two people
at the Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Smeets emphasized there was no residential
area in the immediate vicinity and presented photographs showing distances of the
facility to the people who objected. He explained that to the contrary there were
several neighbors present who lived in closer proximity to the business who would
testify they had no objections regarding noise.
Mr. Smeets stated that although the Planning Commission indicated the petitioner
did not demonstrate a hardship, one definitely existed in that a new lease was
negotiated on the building currently occupied by his client in anticipation that
K-mart would move in and take over the building since the Hansen Development Com-
pany was in the process of concluding a lease with them, which lease would generate
new people and new revenue. If his client was not allowed to continue his business,
there was a possibility that the K-mart lease could be in jeopardy.
Mr. Smeets stated further that relative to traffic, the objections were of no sub-
stance and he also refuted the claim that his client was open until 8:00 or 9:00
at night; he testified that the shop was closed at 5:30 or 6:00 p.m.. He stressed
77-392
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
that his client had built a good business, continuing what Grants had been doing
previously; that his operation was a very clean one of benefit to those surround-
ing it with no adverse impact.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Smeets stated that when the lease was origi-
nally negotiated with Hansen Development Company, his client was not told of uses
not permitted, but to the contrary.
Miss Santalahti explained for Councilman Roth that Grants was operating legally in
the subject location as it was their right to do so just as the new tenant as long
as they remained in the existing location. When relocation was discussed, however,
it was decided that the business was no longer a legitimate non-conforming use, but
expanded and changed enough to where they would have to file for a variance.
Councilman Seymour questioned Mr. Smeets regarding the implication that K-mart
would cancel their lease if the Council did not grant Variance No. 2913.
Mr. Smeets explained that K-mart had not entered into a lease, but was involved in
negotiations. If his client could not stay or relocate, then he would have to
take possible legal actions against Hansen which would be detrimental to the
potential K-mart contract. Although he could not give assurance if the petition
for variance were granted, K-mart would move in, he stated that chances would be
better.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Sylvester Shannon, 2312 East Paradise Road, was opposed to the granting of
Variance No. 2913 because of the noise and air pollution generated in tuning up
boats and running a dune buggy with straight pipes across an empty lot.
The following people spoke in favor of the Applicant and the granting of Variance
No. 2913 for the below listed reasons and supporting comments: Mr. Tom Rofer,
address unknown, Mr. Irvin Wayne, 2233 East Westport, Mrs. Margaret Eckleman,
2218 Westport, Mr. Sikora, Sikora's Bakery, 2016 East Lincoln, Mr. Bob Sherwood,
Sochat's Jewelers, 2218 East Lincoln, Mr. Gary Gardner, 2404 "B" North Glassell,
Orange, Mr. Kenneth Wood, Wood's Stationery, 2030 East Lincoln.
1. It is doubtful that the noise problem is caused by the applicant's business.
It is gratifying to know that an honest person is still in the automobile business
and an extended closing time would be even more desirable.
2. The noise is not bothersome even to those residents who live directly across
from the garage on Westport; dune buggies were only at the facility for a short
time.
3. Ail the elderly people on Westport speak well of the business and are pleased
to know that it is there and can be depended upon if there is any trouble.
4. The business has made the shopping center much better and brighter. No differ-
ence in noise level between the prior tenants, Grants, and the present user even
with the inclusion of boats.
C_ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
77-393
5. The business is not open at night or after closing hours.
6. The noise level is not offensive.
7. The business is an asset to the community and a very neat, clean operation.
Councilman Seymour asked Mr. Wood, the last person to speak in favor of the variance,
whether the reason why so many tenants of the East Anaheim Shopping Center were
defending the Applicant was because his was a good sound business, an asset and
should be allowed to continue or was it the possibility that K-mart would move in
and bring people and customers to their stores.
Mr. Wood stated from his standpoint he considered it to be a good sound business
and should be allowed to continue. He also stated he was not certain, in his own
mind, relative to the merits of K-mart being a tenant in the center.
Councilman Roth questioned Mr. Ranson relative to the procedure used in rewing
up boats, as well as controls used to mitigate noise.
Mr. Peter Ranson, auto and boat crew, 2140 East Lincoln, explained the procedure
and also emphasized it was done with the tail of the boat in the shop, thereby
the noise was muffled on the inside rather than outdoors. Mr. Smeets interjected
that the new proposed building would be located so that the noise would be reduced
to an even greater extent; the front of the building facing Lincoln and the back
facing Westport. Although there would be some noise, it would not be objectionable.
Referring to the six-foot high chain link fence on the south side of the proposed
building which would enclose an area of 1960 square feet, Councilman Seymour wanted
to know if the plan was to have just an open fence.
Mr. Ranson stated that the fence would have lattice work put into it with the
possibility of some kind of design so as to prevent any eyesore.
Mr. Smeets emphasized for Councilman Seymour that he did not want to give the
impression that he was using the K-mart situation as a threat of any kind.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywo0d asked the City Attorney if the variance could be tied to the
particular user or a time limit placed thereon.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that a time limit would be possible for a year or
more.
Miss Santalahti stated that one year was a short period of time and if any of the
conditions were violated, no matter what length of time was placed upon the variance,
it could be revoked.
Mr. Hopkins confirmed however that such revocation would require a public hearing.
77-~4
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Both Councilman Seymour and Mayor Thom pointed out that since the Applicant's
investment into a new building would be considerable, if a time limit was placed
on the variance, such an investment would be doubtful.
Councilman Roth wanted to be certain that the residents were protected in the
evening hours relative to the closing time and asked if the Applicant would
stipulate to a 6:00 p.m. time; Councilman Seymour wanted confirmation that the
chain link fence would be interwoven with plastic or redwood.
Both Mr. Ranson and Mr. Smeets stipulated to a closing time of 6:00 p.m. and that
metal or plastic slats would be installed in the chain link fence.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern about the dual use with resultant prob-
lems, especially if there was no way to tie the variance to the particular owner.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-230 for adoption granting Variance No.
2913, subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations and additional stip-
ulations by the Applicant. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-230: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2913.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MBMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-230 duly passed and adopted.
119: CARTOON IN ANAHEIM POLICE ASSOCIATION MONTHLY NEWSLETTER: Sergeants Donoghue
and Jansen, on behalf of the Anaheim Police Association, presented each Council
Member with a reproduction of a cartoon by Sgt. Donoghue printed in their monthly
newsletter with the article from the Anaheim Bulletin entitled "The Smoke Filled
Room" in which each Council Member was characterized.
150: AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 881 - BROOKHURST COMMUNITY BUILDING: (Second Stage
Construction, EDA Project) Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-231 for
adoption awarding a contract in accordance with the renommendations of the City
Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-231: 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: BROOK-
HURST COMMUNITY BUILDING, SECOND STAGE CONSTRUCTION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK
ORDER NO. 881, CA-0806-0, EDA 07-51-08031. (Near Cal Corp., for Item 3, $800,226)
77-395
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-231 duly passed and adopted.
169: AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 902 - BARRIER FREE ANAHEIM: (EDA No. 07-51-01053)
Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-232 for adoption awarding a contract
in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-232: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP-
MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND
PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: BARRIER FREE ANAHEIM, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, E.D.A. PROJECT NO.
07-51-01053, WORK ORDER NO. 902. (N-D-L Construction of La Habra, $78,076.50)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-232 duly passed and adopted.
169: AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 903 - LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS ALLEY IMPROVEMENT: (EDA
Project No. 07-51-01052) Councilwoman Kaywood offered ResOlution No. 77R-233
for adoption awarding a contract in accordance with the recommendations of the
City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-233: 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 PER-
FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENT: LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS ALLEY IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, E.D.A. PROJECT
NO. 07-51-01052, WORK ORDER NO. 903. (R.J. Noble Company, $141,925.70)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-233 duly passed and adopted.
77-396
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
156: WORK ORDER NO. 1055 - REHABILITATION OF POLICE PISTOL RANGE: On motion
by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, award of Work Order No.
1055 for the Rehabilitation of the Police Pistol Range was continued for one
week. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - REPLACEMENT OF PAINT SPRAY BOOTH - BID NO. 3200:
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the low bid of
Sprayking, Inc., was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $5,953.85,
including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated
March 25, 1977. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - FIFTEEN PAD MOUNT TRANSFORMERS - BID NO. 3206: On
motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the low bids of Westinghouse
Electric Supply Company, Item 1, (8 transformers) and General Electric Company,
Item 2 (7 transformers) were accepted and purchases authorized in the amount of
$19,659.82, including tax and $29,800.84, including tax, respectively, as recommended
by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated March 25, 1977. MOTION CARRIED.
175: WORK ORDER NO. 6395 - 13.8 kV METAL CLAD SWITCHGEAR FOR YORBA SUBSTATION:
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, award of Work Order
No. 6395 for the 13.8 kV metal clad switchgear for Yorba Substation Electrical
Utility System Extension was continued for one week. MOTION CARRIED.
114: CONSIDERATION OF EVENING COUNCIL MEETINGS - ANAHEIM JAYCEES: Mr. Oggie
Kemp, 1148 South Chantilly, on behalf of the 70-member Anaheim Jaycees and
Jaycettes, requested consideration of scheduling the first and third Council
meetings of the month in the evening, thereby enabling at least one of their
members to be present.
Discussion followed between the Council and Mr. Kemp at the conclusion of which,
the Mayor stated he would be supportive, on a trial basis, of holding night Council
meetings if the Jaycees could obtain documented broad based community support in
the form of lists from people, organizations, groups, clubs and the like. On
the preponderance of such support, he would react favorably to the request.
During the discussion, both Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Roth stressed the
fact that in the past ten months, fifteen special night meetings had been held
on issues of great importance to the community, and the Council never refused a
request to hold such evening meetings.
Councilman Seymour stated that he would be willing to hold night meetings since
the best government was that in which the most people involved themselves, even
considering the added expense that would be incurred.
105 AND 161: PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No.
77R-234 for adoption, ms requested in memorandum from William Woods, Chairman
of the Project Area Committee. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-234: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
EXTENDING THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE FOR AN ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
77-397
_C. ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-234 duly passed and adopted.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-2.3~ AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS: Request by C. J. Queyrel,
Anacal Engineering Company, for deletion of certain conditions of Reclassification
No. 74-75-23, proposed RS-5000 zoned property located on the north side of La Palma
Avenue, west of State College Boulevard.
Mr. Jason Heltzer of the George J. Heltzer Company, developers of the subject
property, requested relief regarding signalization at La Palma and Baxter Street
relative to their project which was originally approved for 250 condominiums and
subsequently revised to 164 detached houses adjusting the density downward. He
stated that since there were many extra costs on the project such as the $250,000
storm drain requirement, he was requesting assistance from the City on the signal-
ization. He also emphasized that signed approved plans had been received from the
City with no indication of street signals and if the plans had included this re-
quirement, it would have made it less difficult for them since at present the pro-
ject was running very high, expense wise.
The Mayor explained that in the past month, several citizen groups had approached
the Council relative to what they considered very dangerous conditions existing
around the development imperiling the lives of their children.
Mr. Heltzer stated that there had been communication with Mr. Ed Reikes, the spokes-
man for the area, indicating that Heltzer would work with them.
The Mayor then referred to a similar case relative to signalization and explained
that at a prior recent meeting, Councilman Seymour proposed a change in policy
from full participation by the developer to 50-50 participation and questioned if
the same motion would be appropriate at this time.
Discussion followed wherein Councilwoman Kaywood indicated that it was a matter of
.who was creating the impact; if it involved one project, then that developer would
be responsible for signalization. Mr. Heltzer contended, however, that since the
project was reduced in density, the resultant impact was considerably less than
anticipated.
Mr. Cal Queyrel, Anacal Engineering Company, stated that the basic point to consider
was that Tract Map No. 8866 was approved without the condition that a signal
be required. Although the condition was stipulated to on the reclassification in
March of 1975 when rezoning to RM-4000, allowing the original 250 units, there was
no condition requiring a signal on the tract map itself. Consequently no money
was allowed in the development of the tract for signalization. Theoretically,
therefore, it was a new condition, while technically it could be imposed because of
its inclusion on the reclassification. In September, at the request of the Heltzer
Company, Mr. Queyrel, sent a letter to Traffic Engineer Paul Singer. Although Mr.
Singer was on vacation at that time, when he returned, he called Mr. Queyrel and
stated the signal was not required.
77-398
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~. 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that according to the staff report, a 20% reduction
of traffic from the original proposal was not of sufficient magnitude to eliminate
the requirement for a traffic signal and, further, it would be appropriate for
the City to participate by providing one-eighth of the funds to do so.
Mr. Queyrel stated that if, in fact, the condition were imposed on the developer,
a 50-50 participation would be fair.
In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Queyrel stated that he did not ask for relief
from the reclassification condition when the tract map was approved in view of the
fact that there was no such condition for signalization on the map and, therefore,
it was not considered that the condition of the prior zoning would carry over to
the tract map. It was then that he asked the Traffic Engineer if the signal was
required and was told no.
Discussion followed between Councilman Seymour and staff wherein Miss Santalahti
explained the particular case was one of the early instances where traffic sig-
nals were required and the condition was on the reclassification only. It had
been done in this manner before and the reclassification was typically what staff
was most interested in because the tract could be revised and conditions deleted.
A rezoning action for a given zone would require another public hearing, whereas
a tract map would not. She further explained that under the present procedure,
conditions were stated in every zoning action possible to be sure that they were
not overlooked. Although there may be some similarities, tract maps often had
more conditions than reclassifications and the tract map conditions were typically
applied entirely by the Engineering Division and usually pertained to the develop-
ment itself.
Further discussion followed revolving around the condition for signalization not
having been included on the tract map; staff maintained it was not an unusual occur-
rence and the Mayor pointed out that staff could never arbitrarily delete a ~ondi-
tion originally imposed. Mr. Queyrel reiterated that the condition was not included
because signalization was not then required.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour gave some background on the policy for participation
in signalization which, up until his recent motion for 50-50 participation, required
the developer to pay for the full cost. He moved that in this case the cost of the
traffic signal at La Palma and Baxter Avenues be shared on a 50-50 basis with the
developer. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No".
MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour also moved that a Council Policy be established stating
participation in signalization be on a 50-50 basis in order to preclude the recurring
discussion regarding participation every time the subject arose. Councilman Thom
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that if there was a situation
where a clear impact was being made by one developer only, it would be fair for
that developer to pay the full amount.
Miss Santalahti interjected that in several instances estimates had been made on
how much traffic would be generated by different sources at a given intersection
and suggested that rather than the 50-50 participation being the optimum, a pro-
portionate share be calculated.
77-39 9
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour thereupon amended his motion directing staff to draw up a
Council Policy stating in the future the cost of participation in signalization
be calculated on a pro rata basis. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar
Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to
the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Mrs. Lois McFarlin for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of her car striking a deep hole on South Euclid at Romneya on or about
February 11, 1977.
b. Claim submitted by Allstate (John Roll, insured) for property damages purportedly
sustained as a result of a burned out street light on or about January 17, 1977.
c. Claim submitted by Allstate (Szabo Food Service, insured) on behalf of Mary
Rushing, for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of slipping and
falling on water at Anaheim Stadium on or about February 28, 1977.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed.
a. 175: Federal Power Commission re Southern California Edison Company filing
changes of rates for transmission services with Cities of Anaheim and Riverside,
effective January 13, 1977.
b. 132: State Solid Waste Management Board re July 1, 1977, deadline for desig-
nation of a local solid waste management enforcement agency.
c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of March 16, 1977.
d. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of March 8, 1977.
e. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of March 7, 1977.
f. 140: Monthly report for February, 1977 - Library.
g. 102: Orange County Vector Control District - 1976 Annual Report.
h. 105: Public Library Board - Minutes of February 22, 1977.
i. 173: Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Application of
Buena Park Development Corporation, dba Holiday Inn of Buena Park, for authority
to operate as a Passenger Stage Corporation between Holiday Inn in Buena Park and
the Disneyland Amusement Park in Anaheim; Response, Protest and Motion to Dismiss
by Town Tour Fun Bus Company, Inc.
MOTION CARRIED.
77- 400
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NOS. 77R-235 THROUGH 77R-240: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution
Nos. 77R-235 through 77R-240, 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-235: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Eugene M. Prather, et ux.;
Warmington Development, Inc.; Francis R. Hall, et ux.; Russell L. Hafdahl, et ux.;
Wilber Newton, et ux.; Clara M. Kirkhart, et al.; Phil W. Bastin, et ux.; Roy H.
Kliss, et ux.; Russell J. Brooks, et ux.)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-236: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH BIXBY LAND COMPANY
(76-6E).
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-237: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC-
TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TIMKEN ROAD/COYOTE LANE
SEWER IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1273; 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
April 28, 1977, 2:00 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-238: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC-
TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: MODIFICATION AND INSTALLATION
OF PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL INDICATIONS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK
ORDER NO. 802-A; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENT 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 April 28, 1977, 2:00 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-239: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC-
TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: GRAND AVENUE STREET IMPROVE-
M~NT, LINCOLN AVENUE TO DEL MONTE DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO.
806-A; 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 May 5, 1977, 2:00 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-240: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC-
TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: KATELLA AVENUE STREET IMPROVE-
MENT, W/O NINTH STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 807-B; 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 May 5,
1977, 2:00 P.M.)
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
77-'401
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-235 through 77R-240, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning CommiSsion at
their meeting held March 14, 1977, pertaining to the following applications were
submitted for City Council information and consideration.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council author-
ized the actions pertaining to the following Environmental Impact Requirements as
recommended by the City Planning Commission and took no further action on the
following applications. (Item Nos. 1 through 4)
1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The Planning Commission
recommended to the City Council that the subject project in the following listed
zoning application be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environ-
mental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act:
Variance No. 2911
2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The ~lanning Director has
determined that the proposed activities in the following listed zoning applications
fall within the definitions of Section 3.01, Class 3, of the City of Anaheim guide-
lines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and are, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirements to file an EIR:
Conditional Use Permit No. 1688
Conditional Use Permit No. 1692
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1688: Submitted by Kenney Golf Enterprises, Inc.,
to permit a billboard on ML zoned property located at the southeast corner of La
Palma Avenue and Shepard Street, with certain code waivers.
City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-59 denied Conditional Use Permit
No. 1688.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1692: Submitted by William C. Stookey, to permit
the continued use of two existing billboards on CG zoned property located at
254 South Anaheim Boulevard with waiver of permitted location.
City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-66 granted Conditional Use Permit
No. 1692 for one year.
MOTION CARRIED.
77-~02
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
VARIANCE NO. 2911: Submitted by California Evangelistic Association, Inc., to
construct an ll-unit, two-story apartment complex for the elderly on RM-1200
zoned property located at 118 West Adele Street with certain code waivers.
City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-58 granted Variance No. 2911, in part,
for a 10-unit complex.
Councilman Kott questioned staff as to whether or not Variance No. 2911 was a
tax-exempt project as he did not approve of religious, tax-exempt organizations
entering the profit-making business and not paying taxes.
Miss Santalahti explained that the Planning Commission asked whether the housing
would be Federally financed in some manner. They were told that the project would
not be Federally financed but instead was one the congregation was undertaking on
their own.
City Attorney Hopkins also confirmed that the only thing that would not be taxed,
as stated by Councilman Roth, would be a church sanctuary. Although he would have
to investigate in this particular instance, that was the usual procedure.
The City Council took no further action on the application.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1694: Submitted by Dunn Business Parks, to construct
a 45-unit motel on ML zoned property located on the north side of La Palma
Avenue, west of Woodland Drive.
The Mayor stated he had received a telephone call and a letter from Dunn Properties
relative to traffic signalization in conjunction with the proposed project wherein
the Planning Commission Resolution stated that the entire financial responsibility
for the installation of traffic signals would be borne by the developer. In light
of the previous policy set for 50-50 participation, the only way the condition
could be changed was to set the matter for public hearing. The Mayor thereupon
requested that Conditional Use Permit No. 1694 be set for public hearing.
VARIANCE NO. 2705 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Fred J. Barbour, Curci-Turner
Company, for an extension of time to Variance No. 2705 for outdoor storage of
trucks and equipment on RS-7200 zoned property located on the south side of
Cypress Street, west of Vine Street.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, extension of time was
denied on Variance No. 2705 as recommended by the City Planning Commission. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-241 for adoption terminating Variance
No. 2705, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-241: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 2705 AND DECLARING
RESOLUTION NO. PC75-124 NULL AND VOID.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
77-403
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-241 duly passed and adopted.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1570 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Curt
Bosworth, Star-Dust Charters, Inc., requesting termination of Conditional.
Use Permit No. 1570 to permit a bus depot on property located on the north side
Lincoln, west of Magnolia Avenue.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-242 for adoption, terminating
Conditional Use Permit No. 1570, as recommended by the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-242: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1570
AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. PC75-217 NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MF21BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-242 duly passed and adopted.
170: TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 9792: Developer, John D. Lusk and Son; tract
located on the north side of Nohl Ranch Road, east of Villa Real Drive, con-
taining 29 RS-HS-10,000 proposed zoned lots (EIR No. 132 certified February 25,
1975).
Miss Santalahti explained that a letter was received the day before from the
Riding and Hiking Trails Committee of the Hill and Canyon area, as well as an
aerial map showing the location of the requested trail relating to the subject
tract.
Mr. Don Steffenson, representing John D. Lusk and Son, indicated that he had not
seen the letter but requests had been received from the Trails Committee to con-
sider granting an easement. Lusk's basic concern was not that of granting the
easement, but whether their residents in the Nohl Ranch area who would be partici-
pating in its maintenance would benefit from it. They suggested to the Trails
Committee that they meet with the Rockypoint Community Association, the people
who would be paying for the maintenance of all the slopes adjacent to the area to
solicit their comments. It was his understanding that they did meet and the con-
census was they did not feel they would benefit from the trail and had no particu-
lar interest in its being located there. However, the Nohl Ranch Homeowners
Association indicated it would be an asset to the community.
77-~04
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Steffenson explained that Lusk was also concerned over the fact that the trail
was not considered in any of their initial lengthy discussions on the project, as
well as on the original tentative maps. Now, this would have to be done and addi-
tional public input would have to be solicited particularly from the Peralta Hills
people who would benefit the greatest. It had been suggested in previous discussions
that all or part of the trail might be on their properties which was not possible
at the present time. Mr. Lusk did not have any objection to the trail itself other
than the future benefits of those who would be living in the development.
Councilman Seymour suggested that the tentative tract be continued until input was
received from ?eralta Hills.
Mr. Steffenson did not consider the tract to be part of the trail because it was
not adjacent or connected to it. It was immediately below Nohl Ranch Road and
did not touch the trail at any point. He reiterated there was no objection to
granting the easement, but they wanted input from the residents who were paying
for maintenance adjacent to it to ascertain if it was going to be a benefit.
Mr. Steffenson clarified for Councilman Seymour that Tract Nos. 8647 and 8418 were
the tracts that were approved and they abutted the easement. The first increment
of homes was scheduled to start in May. He also explained for Councilman Seymour
that the Rockypoint Community Association was a mandatory one responsible for the
two tracts although the Association was initially formed for Tract No. 8153.
Councilman Seymour stated that if the Community Association was approached first,
they would reject the trail so the only course of action in order to insure that
there would be a trail was to have it established beforehand.
Mr. Steffenson stated that the Association preferred not to have the trail. Since
they were responsible for maintenance of the slopes immediately adjacent to the
trail, they were concerned over the kinds of liabilities and problems that would
be incurred and the recourse for reimbursement for such costs.
Councilman Seymour indicated the reason they were impacted was due to the fact
there was one large mandatory association covering slope maintenance for both
Tract Nos. 8418, 8647 and possibly 8792. He emphasized that the trail had to go
in, but the problem had to be resolved before and not after houses were built as
to its optimum location, Peralta Hills property or Lusk property.
Mr. Steffenson stated they also wanted the issue resolved beforehand because they
did not want to sell houses with unresolved questions; the unknowns being the
responsibility and cost of maintenance. In order to resolve the problem and
short of making it a condition of the tract, he would inform Lusk the City wanted
the trail. Subsequently Lusk would grant the easement, and the City would provide
improvements and maintenance. Mr. Steffenson wanted clarification that was the
correct assumption.
Miss Santalahti explained that typically the trail was constructed by the developer
and the assumption by everyone was that the City would maintain it. However, it
was very unclear because there was no assessment district, although some work was
being done by the Trails Committee to come up with a definite proposal as to what
would be involved in maintaining the trail.
77-405
City Hall~ Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- April 5, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour stated that although he did not want to hamper the development,
the only solution was to attach a condition to the tentative tract unless some
other assurance could be given to the City relative to dedication of the trail.
Mr. Steffenson indicated they did not object to granting an easement as a condition
of the tract, but were concerned relative to the requirement for improvements. Be-
cause of the terrain involved, the trail would ultimately have to traverse back and
forth between their property and Peralta Hills property.
Carol Cramer, speaking on behalf of Peralta Hills and the Riding and Hiking Trails
Committee, indicated she would be happy to answer any questions.
Councilman Seymour asked if the trail could traverse Peralta Hills property where
rough terrain was encountered and, if so, who would be financially responsible for
the maintenance.
Mrs. Cramer could only speak to the first question and explained that most Peralta
Hills homes on the perimeter had been established for many years and already had
block walls, chain link fences, trees and like improvements. Therefore, there
would be a problem installing a trail in areas already maintained expensively
for many years, whereas on the Lusk side it was free and clear. She also maintained
that the trails would be for the people of the Canyon, hikers, as well as horseback
riders, and horseowners only should not always be asked to pay for the trails. She
did not have an answer relative to who would pay for maintenance but, as suggested
by Councilman Seymour, she would solicit a recommendation from the Trails Committee.
Janice Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, President of Westridge Homeowners Association, ex-
plained that since the trails system traversed their common area, they were running
into a severe insurance problem and in danger of losing their insurance. Under-
writers and engineers alike were asking questions about ratings and liability insur-
ance involving animals which they could not answer. She urged that a yet-to-be-formed
homeowners association not be burdened with the liability of a horse trail because
the problem would never be resolved. That burden should not be placed on associations
not horse oriented since the trail was strictly an amenity for horseowners and that's
where the responsibility should lie. She did not want to have her association pay
for such insurance.
Councilman Seymour indicated that the City should investigate the possibility of
insuring the trails since they were City trails for which an easement was granted,
yet the homeowners were being asked to insure them. It was his opinion the home-
owners should be relieved from assuming that liability.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the proposed sub-
division, Tentative Map Tract No. 9792, together with its design and improvement,
was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council
approved said Tentative Map subject to the following conditions recommended by
the City Planning Commission, and one additional condition requiring dedication for
a riding and hiking trail in Tract Nos. 8418 and 8647.
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
77-406
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
2. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot high, open, decorative
wall shall be constructed at the top of slope on the south property line separ-
ating Lot Nos. 22 through 29 from Nohl Ranch Road. Reasonable landscaping, in-
cluding irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of
the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said
landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent
of Parkway Maintenance; and following installation and acceptance, the City of
Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping.
3. That all lots within this tract will be served by underground utilities.
4. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved
by the City Council and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
5. That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the
final tract map and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions, and re-
strictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
6. That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant shall submit to the
City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of the proposed function-
ing of the operating corporation including, but not limited to, the articles of
incorporation, bylaws, proposed methods of management, bonding to insure mainte-
nance of common property and buildings, and such other information as the City
Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and the purchasers of the
project.
7. That street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department prior to
approval of a final tract map.
8. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale,
lease or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject prop-
erty, shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be re-
corded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
9. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appro-
priate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City
Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
10. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site sufficient grading is
required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permitted
between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site drainage facilities
have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the
City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October 15th.
Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the
City, or the City Council shall have initiated condemnation proceedings therefor
(the costs of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to the commencement
of grading operations. The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and
type sufficient to carry runoff waters originating from higher properties through
said property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drain-
age facilities shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and
77-407
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
be functional throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property
to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building in-
spections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may
be made available to the developers of said property upon their request.
11. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be con-
ducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating
from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating
from or flowing through this project.
12. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary street name
signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
13. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged, as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department, prior to commencement of
structural framing.
14. That dedication shall be made to the City of Anaheim for a 10-foot wide eques-
trian and hiking trails easement along the northern boundaries of Tract Nos. 8418
and 8647; said dedication to be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange
County Recorder prior to the recordation of a final tract map.
An added condition of approval by the Council of Tentative Tract No. 9792 is the
requirement for dedication of a riding and hiking trail.
MOTION CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9149: Request by David E. Cunningham for waiver of
Council Policy No. 538 for Lot Nos. 87 and 88 of Tract No. 9149, proposed
l17-1ot, RS-5000 subdivision on property located on the northwest corner of
Orangethorpe Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, request for waiver
of Council Policy No. 538 for Lot Nos. 87 and 88 of Tract No. 9149 was approved
as recommended by the City Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
123: ORDINANCE NO. 3675: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3675 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3675: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD
OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. (1959
Survivor's Benefit Coverage)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3675 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3678 THROUGH 3683: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance Nos. 3678
through 3683, both inclusive, for first reading.
77-408
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3678: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 14.32.430 RE-
LATING TO PARKING. (designated parking for physically handicapped)
ORDINANCE NO. 3679: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-44(20), RS-5000)
ORDINANCE NO. 3680: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-24, RM-1200)
ORDINANCE NO. 3681: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-55(3), CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 3682: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (67-68-7(7), RS-HS-iO,O00)
ORDINANCE NO. 3683: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-30 and 31, RM-2400)
105: AD HOC CULTURAL NEEDS COMMITTEE: At the request of Councilwoman Kaywood,
staff clarified that the date time and place of the meeting with the ad hoc
Cultural Needs Committee was Tuesday, April 12, 1977, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council
Chamber.
142: REQUEST FOR REHEARING - NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, request for rehearing on the National Electri-
cal Code adopted by Ordinance No. 3661, was approved and public hearing set for
April 26, 1977, 3:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED.
166 AND 179: ENFORCEMENT OF SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE ORDINANCE: Councilman
Seymour explained that a number of citizen complaints had been received regarding
the roof-mounted equipment on the Alpha Beta Market at Nohl Ranch Road and Canyon
Rim Road which equipment did not meet the standards of the Scenic Corridor
Overlay Zone Ordinance.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, staff was instructed
to enforce the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone Ordinance to its highest standards
especially relevant to the Alpha Beta Market at Nohl Ranch Road and Canyon Rim
Road. MOTION CARRIED.
149: "FOR SALE" VEHICLES IN COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTERS: Councilman Seymour
explained that he received several inquiries and complaints from commercial
property owners in various parts of the City who owned shopping centers relative
to the parking of vehicles in their lots with "for sale" signs on them. These
owners found no recourse through the Police Department in having the vehicles
removed since there was no City ordinance enabling them to do so.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City
Attorney was directed to investigate a Newport Beach city ordinance relative to
precluding of vehicles offered for sale in commercial shopping centers. Council-
man Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENT TO COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: Councilman Thom appointed Mrs.
Shirley Moss, 1019 Via Vista, to the Community Services Board to fill the un-
expired term of Mr. Andres Fernandez, term ending June 30, 1979.
77-409
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 5~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
105: RECOGNITION BANQUETS - CITY BOARDS~ COMMISSIONS AND OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES:
The Mayor referrred to memorandum dated April 4, 1977 from Public Information
Officer, Ken Clements, on the proposed recognition banquets to be held May 13 and
June 3, 1977 for members of City Boards, Commissions and other official bodies.
Council discussion followed relative to the recommendations, at the conclusion
of which it was suggested that the Chairman of each of the bodies submit a list
of names of the members to be invited who have attended at least 50 percent of
their meetings thus far. Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Seymour would sub-
mit a list of Task Force members. The newly established and appointed HACMAC and
Youth Commission were not to be included.
Councilman Seymour noted, for the press, that Anaheim was one of the very few
cities where boards, commissions and advisory committees served without pay;
Councilman Kott added that it was also one of the few cities where people were
willing to work without being paid.
The Mayor stated he had always maintained those groups should be paid, but in lieu
of such payment, it was appropriate that they be thanked in an extraordinary way.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into Executive
Session; Councilmen Kott and Thom refrained from attending. (5:30 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present. (6:10 P.M.)
153: ANAHEIM POLICE ASSOCIATION - POLICE SAFETY EQUIPMENT: On motion by Council-
man Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the request of the Anaheim Police
Association to discuss Police saps was approved and public meeting set for April 19,
1977. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott explained that two attorneys were at the meeting today and the
matters they brought before the Council could also be potential litigation but the
Council still heard them. Although he understood the matter at hand, he made
the choice not to participate.
The Mayor stood on his statement made earlier in the meeting that he would meet
privately or publicly with anyone at anytime on request.
Councilman Seymour, speaking on behalf of the remainder of the Council, stated that
the Police Association matter was taken up in Executive Session on advice of the
City Attorney as a subject of potential litigation. Until he no longer had faith
in the City Attorney, he would follow his advice.
ADJOURNMENT: By general consent, the meeting was adjourned.
Adjourned: 6:12 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK