Loading...
1977/10/18 77-1135 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 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 PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS DIRECTOR: James Ruth Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Paul Keller of the First Presbyterian Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Thom and unanimously approved by the City Council: "United Nations Day in Anaheim" - October 24, 1977 DECLARATION OF GREETINGS AND WELCOME: A declaration of greetings and welcome, unanimously adopted by the City Council, was accepted by Commander John Leahy on behalf of the participants in the Naval Reserve Association Conference being held in Anaheim October 20 - 23, 1977. RESOLUTION - SPECIAL TRIBUTE: A resolution joining the Anaheim Breakfast Optimist Club in a special tribute to Vesey Walker on October 20, 1977 for his contributions to his con~nunity and his accomplishments in the music field was unanimously adopted by the City Council, to be delivered at a later date. 54TH ANNUAL HALLOWEEN PARADE - PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL: Ms. Roxie Alger, Parade Coordinator, 54th Annual Halloween Festival, first briefed the Council on the pre- parade activities, as well as the parade itself scheduled for October 29, 1977. She invited all Council Members to ride in the parade as special guests of the Anaheim Halloween Festival Association. ~INUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, minutes of the Anaheim City Council regular meetings held August 23 and September 20, 1977 and adjourned regular meeting held September 28, 1977, were approved. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read- ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. 77-1136 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977, 1:30 P.M. FINA~CIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $744,658.43, in accordance with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved. 123: REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA PROJECT AREA - PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - COOPERA- TION AGREEMENT NO. 4: Councilman Roth explained that since he owned property at the corner of Lincoln Avenue and Bush Street, he would abstain from any discussion and voting on the subject matter. Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-674 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 4, 1977, from the Executive Director of Community Develop- ment, Norm Priest. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-674: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO BE OF BENEFIT TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA PROJECT AREA AND DETERMINING THAT NO OTHER REASONABLE MEANS OF FINANCING SUCH PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ARE AVAILABE TO THE COMMUNITY; CONSENTING TO THE PAYMENT BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO THE CITY OF THE NET COST OF CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS; CERTIFYING AS TO THE COMPLETION AND REVIEW OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATION THEREFOR BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE AGENCY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-674 duly passed and adopted. 123: HOUSING AUTHORITY - REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT: Councilwoman' Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 77R-675 and 77R-676 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 10, 1977, from the Executive Director, Norm Priest. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-675: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (date of inception of Authority to June 30, 1977) RESOLUTION NO. 77R-676: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (effective July 1, 1977) 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-675 and 77R-676 duly passed and adopted. 77-1137 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 174: AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL: (October 1, 1977 through September 30, 1978) Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-677 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 10, 1977, from the Executive Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-677: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. 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-677 duly passed and adopted. 160 AND 112: SUPPLEMENTAL PURCHASE ORDER AND SUBSEQUENT SMALL CLAIMS ACTION - BID NO. 3195 - SANTA ANA DODGE: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memoran- dum dated October 11, 1977, from the Purchasing Agent recommending that a supple- mental purchase order in the amount of $610.56, to Santa Ana Dodge (SAD) be approved with subsequent Small Claims Court action to resolve the additional payment issue. It was determined that refusing to make the payment would not be in the best interest of the City since the vehicles were needed and were at the lowest possible cost. Discussion followed between Council and staff relative to the matter, wherein it was ascertained that even with the error made by Santa Ana Dodge in their calcula- tion, they were still the lowest bidder by some $400. It was Mr. Talley's opinion, however, that a matter of integrity was involved since SAD accepted the award and ordered the equipment, but were now refusing to deliver unless the additional payment was made. If they (SAD) initially rejected the award, the City would have been able to rebid and order the necessary vehicles in a timely manner. He considered it unfair for the City to be placed in a position of expecting the vehicles on a certain date and then being told delivery would only take place conditionally. To wait another seven or eight months for delivery by another vendor at a higher cost was an unacceptable alternative in this case. The Mayor recommended that Santa Ana Dodge be removed from the City's bid list in the future since City Manager Talley regarded the supplemental purchase order as representing "ransom". The City Attorney recommended that they not be removed and suggested that the term "ransom" was perhaps not appropriate. Councilman Roth concluded that the procedure of recovery through Small Claims Court would be an indication of the City's displeasure with Santa Ana Dodge. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a supplemental purchase order in the amount of $610.56, to Santa Ana Dodge was approved and staff authorized to take action in Small Claims Court to resolve the payment of the addi- tional amount in connection with Bid No. 3195, as recommended in memorandum dated October 11, 1977, from the Purchasing Agent. MOION CARRIED. 77-1138 C.i.t.y Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 150: PROPOSED USE POLICY FOR THE BROOKHURST COMMUNITY CENTER: Mr. James Ruth, Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department, explained that on the advice of the City Attorney, he was requesting a minor modification on Page 3, Item IV, of the proposed Use Policy and Regulations as follows: "It shall not be permissible to hold religious, political, or labor activities in the community recreation center." On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, the proposed Use Policy and Regulations for the Brookhurst Community Center was approved, as recom- mended in memorandum dated October 11, 1977, from James Ruth, with the recommended modification as outlined above. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood commended the committee who formulated the Policy which was applauded at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. 137: EXCESS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the premium quotation submitted by Continental General Insurance Brokers for Excess Workers' Compensation coverage, effective November 1, 1977, and an annual payment of a premium of $79,759 was approved, as recommended in memorandum dated October 12, 1977, from Personnel Director Garry Mc Rae. MOTION CARRIED. 158: REQUEST TO PURCHASE EXCESS LAND OWNED BY THE CITY: (Tentative Tract No. 9857, east side of Kellogg Drive, south of Imperial Highway -- TA Development Company) City Manager Talley clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the value for which the property was proposed to be sold ($761) represented a current appraisal, and as well, the property was contiguous with and would logically be- come a part of Tract No. 9857. No one was on the other side of the property. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-678 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated September 28, 1977, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-678: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY IS UNUSABLE FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES; ACCEPTING AN OFFER TO PURCHASE SAID PROPERTY; AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A DEED THERETO. 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-678 duly passed and adopted. 123: J. J.. VAN HOUTEN AND ASSOCIATES~ TRAFFIC NOISE STUDY ON SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, FAIRMONT BOULEVARD TO IMPERIAL HIGHWAY: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-679 for adoption, as recon~ended in memorandum dated October 10, 1977, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. 77-1139 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-679: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES IN CONNECTION WITH A SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD NOISE STUDY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-679 duly passed and adopted. 150: NON-PROFIT STATUS - ANAHEIM ARTS COUNCIL AND ANAHEIM BEAUTIFUL: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on report dated October 11, 1977, from the Parks, Recrea- tion and Arts Director relative to the consideration of extending the City's non-profit status to include the Anaheim Arts Council and Anaheim Beautiful. Mrs. Sally White, President of Anaheim Beautiful, stated that until her organization received a non-profit status of their own, they wanted the coverage of being a standing committee of the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department, and they were also requesting available legal assistance necessary to proceed in obtaining that status. Councilman Seymour asked City Attorney Hopkins if it was possible for Anaheim Beautiful to use the City's legal department if they were under the previously discussed "umbrella" concept in drafting the appropriate paperwork for non-profit status after which they would withdraw from the "umbrella" and be on their own. City Attorney Hopkins stated that since the City derived a benefit from the Anaheim Beautiful organization, legal assistance could be rendered to assist them gaining a non-profit status. Councilman Seymour explained that he and a majority of the Council went on record as being supportive of the Cultural Arts Foundation umbrella concept, but he was concerned at least relative to the Anaheim Arts Council's request to become a standing committee in the Parks and Recreation Commission or the like. He wanted to avoid that since it would create a situation of going back full circle to the original organizational structure. It was now a matter of waiting to see if the Foundation "umbrella" concept would work. Mrs. White emphasized that something needed to be done because at present Anaheim Beautiful was in "limbo" concerning their status with regard to membership in the organization being tax deductible. Mrs. Elsie Reed, President of the Anaheim Arts Council, also stated that the organi- zation needed the coverage relative to their upcoming soiree because they could not say any donation would be tax deductible. Discussion followed between Councilmen Seymour and Thom and Attorney Hopkins. A recommendation that preparation of a resolution would be the best way to create a relationship with both organizations (Anaheim Beautiful and Anaheim Arts Council) recognizing them as committees of the City of Anaheim, with no ties to any depart- ment, just with the Council. 77-1140 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Attorney was directed to draft a resolution for both organizations as articulated above. MOTION CARRIED. Before concluding, discussion followed relative to a possible time frame for each group or organization involved within which to expedite their own incorpora- tion. Councilwoman Kaywood was of the opinion that the whole matter should be reconsidered inasmuch as the Foundation already published that they had created a wide-umbrella membership as of September 1, 1977, but this never took place. 116: CITY MANAGER'S EUROPEAN TRIP - INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM TO STUDY URBAN TECHNOLOGY: The Mayor explained that City Manager Talley had spoken to him a while back regarding a European trip he was anticipating taking on his vacation time as part of an Inter- national Program to Study Urban Technology wherein he (the Mayor) indicated he considered it appropriate that it be taken as vacation. However, a recent news article stated the trip would be made both on vacation and compensatory time. He recalled discussing use of vacation time only in the Executive Session. He, therefore, wanted to clarify the matter with Mr. Talley because, while he had no objection to compensatory time being taken in small increments, he did not approve of string- ing a number of days together for the purpose"of taking a trip. Mr. Talley stated that he did discuss privately with each Council Member the fact that he had been approached by the sponsoring group months prior regarding whether or not he would be interested in being considered for selection in the Study. It was his impression that most Council Members considered it an honor to the City, but the Mayor indicated that the City should not devote any of the time. Mr. Talley emphasized he thought he made it very clear tha~ both vacation and compensa- tory time would be utilized and at an Executive Session, he specifically said the trip would be six days vacation and five days compensatory time,and the Council was in accord. However, if the Council wanted to change that direction at this time, he would change the arrangements, as he did not want to cause any problem for the Council as a whole or any individual Member. Thus, he chose to change the trip to eleven days' vacation. Discussion followed between the Mayor and Mr. Talley clarifying the use of compensa- tory time, wherein it was pointed out that the City Manager determined compensatory time for department heads, but that compensatory time for exempt employees such as the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, the City Treasurer was determined by the City Council. Councilman Seymour stated that he appreciated Mr. Talley's willingness to honor the request of one Council Member in changing his trip arrangements, but maintained that at least a majority opinion of the Council would indicate that the compensa- tory time was rightfully due considering the long hours Mr. Talley devoted to the City since his employment. Also, the citizens of Anaheim would not be required to pay anything for the trip since no Anaheim tax dollars would be devoted to it, only Federal tax dollars through the National Science Foundation, as explained by Mr. Talley. At the time he discussed the matter with Mr. Talley, it was concluded that the best way to handle the trip, because of the political situation, was vacation and compensatory time combined. He was of the opinion that the matter had now gone too far and thereupon moved that, as agreed upon in Executive Session, five days' compensatory time for Mr. Talley stand for the forthcoming European trip. 77-1141 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Before action was taken on the motion, Mr. Talley stated that although he did not want to infringe upon the motion, with all deference, he asked Councilman Seymour to withdraw it. He then explained that the reason he made arrangements for the trip as he did was to avoid it becoming an issue. Other agencies were paying their managers to be gone for that period because they considered it an honor being one of ten communities selected in the United States. He would willingly donate his own time and money to make the trip, since a great deal of value for the citizens of Anaheim would be obtained. Councilman Seymour thereupon withdrew his motion. Councilman Roth commented that it was clear in the private session he had with Mr. Talley, as well as Executive Session, that vacation and compensatory time would be used. Also, the Council was well aware of the additional hours Mr. Talley de- voted to the City in the last two weeks in labor negotiations alone, and considered the criticism of compensatory time in this case incredulous. He was most supportive of it but understood Mr. Talley's position relative to its evolvement into a political situation. In closing, the Mayor clarified that he had no problem with compensatory time; there was no mind change on his part regarding the matter, but he did not consider grouping days together for the purpose of taking a trip to be proper use of such time. 108: EXTENSION OF SHUT-DOWI~ PERIOD FOR CAMELOT-ANAHEIM: City Attorney Hopkins explained that he was contacted by Ira Riskin, Counsel for Camelot-Anaheim concern- ing the time of rehearing, November 8, 1977, on Order to Show Cause why a Gaming Premises Permit should not be revoked. At the original hearing, September 27, 1977, the Council set the closing date to be thirty days hence meaning that it would fall in the month of October, with the rehearing not scheduled to take place until November 8, 1977. He, therefore, recommended that any enforcement action be stayed until November 8, 1977, as a matter of due process. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, closing of the Camelot-Anaheim was stayed until after the scheduled November 8, 1977 rehearing on Order to Show Cause. MOTION CARRIED. 12~9: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Kott, application by California Fireworks Display Company for a Public Fireworks Display Permit on behalf of Long Beach State College to discharge fireworks on October 22, 1977, at 5:45 p.m. in Anaheim Stadium, was approved. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTMENTS TO AD HOC COMMITTEE TO STUDY CITY'S ELECTRIC UTILITY: Council- woman Kaywood noted that at the last meeting of the Public Utilities Board (PUB), they objected to the additional appointments to the subject Committee and requested they be appointed the ad hoc Committee. She favored such a position and thereupon moved that the Public Utilities Board be the ad hoc Committee to study the City's electric utility. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: 77-1142 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Roth Seymour, Kott and Thom None Councilman Kott stated the objective of the Committee was to remove the matter from City politics and have a cross-section of the population represented wherein recommendations would be forwarded to both the PUB and the City Council. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Councilman Kott to clarify how one could be a political Committee (PUB) and another selected in the same manner not a political one. She was unable to get an answer to her question as the Mayor interjected that the matter had been fully discussed at the prior meeting and thus her question was redundant. Councilman Roth then appointed Mr. Fred Brown, 1531 Minerva, to the ad hoc Committee; Councilman Thom appointed Mrs. Loretta Tambourine, 504 North Buttonwood; Council- woman Kaywood appointed Mr. Otto Larsen, 1805 East Willow, and offered Mr. Norman Sellers' name as the Council appointee. The Mayor, however, indicated that relative to the Council appointee, Councilman Kott had the floor. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, Mr. Joseph Conrad, 2262 Coronet, was nominated as the Council appointee to the ad hoc Committee. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Grant Hubbard, 1913 West Elm Place, was also nominated as the Council appointee to the ad hoc Committee. A vote was taken on Councilman Kott's motion and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom Kaywood, Seymour and Roth None A vote was taken on Councilman Seymour's motion and carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth Kott and Thom None Thus, Mr. Grant Hubbard was appointed to the special ad hoc Committee. MOTION CARRIED. 155: STATUS OF IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - ROBIN~ WREN~ BLUE JAY, CHEVY CHASE APARTMENT AREA: Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, briefed the Council on his memorandum ~ted October 12, 1977, wherein he outlined the proposed future program consisting of three alternate approaches which he considered to be viable and of long-range nature, using private, public and community resources. The report was an interim one to keep the Council apprised of the progress being made in the area and a more comprehensive report would be submitted in approximately four weeks. 77-1143 .City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor noted two errors of omission in a message translated into Spanish and distributed to the area residents. Mr. Thompson indicated he would correct them accordingly. In answer to Councilman Kott relative to consequences if owners were not willing to comply regarding violations, Mr. Thompson stated that prior to going into a more comprehensive code enforcement program, he would inform the Council as to what the additional action would entail should the private and public resources fail to solve the existing problems. Councilman Seymour commended Mr. Thompson and staff for their efforts in the matter and he was looking forward to a more specific report within the month. Although the City had to try to stay clear of instituting a comprehensive Building Code enforcement program, he would not be unwilling to do so if such action was warranted. 169 AND 155: HACMAC RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO CODES AND POLICIES FOR HILLSID,i ROAD STANDARDS: Mr. Thompson referred to his report dated October 12, 1977, recommend- · lng the incorporation of the proposed HACMAC revisions pertaining to codes and policies for hillside road standards. He noted, however, that the City Engineer was concerned regarding references to special assessment districts in Council' Policies 207 and 207A and requested they not be deleted and also, the City Attorney recommended that reference to specific Council Policies in the Code be eliminated and replaced by more general language. City Engineer James Maddox explained that the major concern in deleting the portion of Council Policy relating to special assessment districts was due to the problem the City was faced with in the Peralta Hills area. The streets, having been acquired by annexation from the County, were in great disrepair, and it was estimated the present day cost of reconstruction would be $350,000 to $400,000, representing a great expense to the City and taxpayers. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that when the matter of street improvements was discussed at the General Planning Task Force on which she and Councilman Seymour served, it was the concenses of everyone on the Task Force, including the residents of the area, that they wanted to remain rural. The streets were also to remain that way, with no curbs or gutters. Since it was their choice, it was determined that in the future when new residents moved in, or anybody decided they wanted the improvements, it would not be fair for the whole City to then pay for such improve- ments. She did not want the references to the special assessment districts per- taining to road improvements deleted from Council Policy Nos. 207 and 207A. Councilman Seymour stated the Task Force agreed if the residents wanted to eliminate street standards they could do so, thus the developer would then not be required to provide those improvements. However, they were not to come back in the future and request those improvements, thereby causing a burden to the taxpayer. The City would provide the improvements at that time if so desired, but special assessment districts would have to be formed, and the residents would be specifically required to pay. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that some of the people on HACMAC were also members of the Task Force and were well aware of the unanimous decision at the time. 77-1144 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, HACMAC recommen- dations pertaining to codes and policies for hillside road standards were approved as recommended w£thout the deletion of references in both Council Policy No. 207 and 207A pertaining to the requirement that special assessment districts be formed for the purpose of installing road improvements. MOTION CARRIED. 105: CALIFORNIA HISTORY AND MUSEUM COMMITTEE OF THE ANAHEIM EBELL CLUB - DONATION: Councilman Kott moved that the donation of a grape arbor by the California History and Museum Committee of the Ebell Club of Anaheim to be constructed on the Mother Colony House grounds be approved, as recommended in memorandum dated October 1i, 1977, from the Mother Colony Advisory Board and the Library Director. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney Hopkins clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that no conflict of interest would be involved if she voted on the matter, even though a member of the Ebell Club, because the donation was a benefit to the City. There was also no indication of conflict relative to Councilwoman Kaywood's vote by any other Council Member. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion and carried unanimously. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth requested that a letter of thanks be sent to the Ebell Club for their donation. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 5056 - EXTENSION OF TIME: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 5056, an 8-lot, 32-unit RM-1200 zoned subdivision on property located on the west side of Knott Street, north of Orange Avenue, to expire November 4, 1978, was approved as recommended in memorandum dated October 10, 1977, from the Assistant Director for Zoning. MOTION CARRIED. 129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit filed by California Fireworks Display Company for the Los Alamitos High School A.S.B. to discharge fireworks at Western High School Stadium on October 28, 1977 at 8:30 P.M., was approved. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: Councilman Kott stated that since it was the policy of the Council to reject door-to-door solicitations unless the requesting organization was based in Anaheim, he would move to deny the appli- cation submitted by Steve Harrison, Agape Force, for door-to-door solicitation with distribution of literature and records, October 23 to December 10, 1977. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. The motion carried with the proviso that any religious group may go door-to-door for religious purposes without a permit. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if an organization had to apply for a permit if they were soliciting funds door-to-door. City Attorney Hopkins explained that solicitation of funds for any purpose required a solicitation permit, but the mere passing out of religious literature, or conducting religious conversation, would not require such a permit. 77-1145 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor further clarified that if, in conjunction with the distribution of religious literature or missionary work, the representative was offered a~contribution, it would not be illegal to accept such a donation. If they ask for a donation and the person approached wanted to take legal action, it would be possible to do so. He clarified that because of citizen pressure on the Anaheim City Council, organizations based outside of the City were summarily denied a door-to-door solicitation permit and further advised they were not, and would not, deny anyone's right under the constitution if they wished to go door-to-door espousing their religion. MOTION CARRIED. 107: "FREDERICK LITTLE HOUSE": Request by Arthur H. Shipkey, Palmall Properties, Inc., in a letter dated September 28, 1977, regarding disposition of the Frederick Little House presently located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Manchester and further requesting that the house be removed in the next 30 days. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the structure be eliminated at the least possible cost which, as indicated in staff report dated October 12, 1977, would be $850 for demolition. The Mayor interjected that prior to taking any action, the Council should be apprised of the fact that Mrs. Diann Marsh stated she had made contact with a local organiza- tion who was in the process of finding a lot on which to relocate the house. He noted that Mr. Glenn Fry was in the Chamber, and Mrs. Marsh had mentioned his name in conjunction with the possibility of relocation of the house. Mr. Glenn Fry explained that he was brought in on the matter just the day before and did not have time to compile figures, but only had an opportunity to make a cursory examination of the situation. From a personal standpoint, he wanted a seven-day extension on the matter. The Mayor was in favor of considering a time extension since the Council previously voted to expend some funds in the amount of $2,535 to permit moving of the house from its original Broadway location. If somebody was willing to do something with the house, he would not be adverse to a continuance to save what, in retrospect, was not a wise investment. Councilman Seymour explained that in discussing the matter with Mrs. Marsh, he suggested the possibility of someone in the private sector securing a vacant lot, paying for the house to be moved to that lot, rehabilitating it, and subsequently selling it on the open market for housing. Mr. Fry, therefore, would need to determine whether or not that possibility made any sense to the organization he was representing. He (Seymour) would be in favor of granting two weeks, subject to Mr. Shipkey's approval as suggested by Councilwoman Kaywood. Mr. Fry clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that $30,000 for rehabilitation and $30,000 for a lot as estimated by staff in the October 12, 1977 report, would be completely out of line in any respect. Councilman Roth withdrew his previous motion and moved that the disposition of the Frederick Little house be continued for two weeks. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 77-1146 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Before concluding, Mr. Tom Cook, 541 South Helena, representing the Anaheim Historical Society, explained that he was speaking on a motion that was made by the Society, although they had no idea Mr. Fry was going to appear before the Council. Therefore, he was going to speak as though Mr. Fry had not spoken previously. The Anaheim Historical Society was asking two things of the City: (1) subject to the approval of Mr. Shipkey, that any demolition or destruction of the house be postponed for 60 days, and (2) the City appoint someone to deal with the Society or others who may wish to seek reasonable disposition of the house. They were not prepared to commit themselves to any role in helping with the house or its disposition although they still had a number of ideas, one being to develop it as a private home and an ongoing pursuit of a museum. However, they needed the extra time to accomplish that alternative. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that as far as a museum, a prior report from structural engineers indicated the house could not be restored to public use because it was not structurally sound, although used as a private home, was another matter. She then clarified for Mr. Cook that, in fact, the City paid $2,535 to have utility lines raised when the house was moved and that money did not come from the $5,000 Pacesetter paid for the actual moving. In order to clarify his position on the matter, Councilman Kott stated that he did not want to devote any more taxpayer funds to the house or its relocation. The house had been at its present location for over a year and nothing was done with it by the Society in trying to determine its disposition or possible alter- nate location. Since it was structurally unsound and had no historical value, he would not have anything further to do with it and if the matter was not resolved in two weeks, he was in favor of it being demolished. Mr. Cook elaborated upon the differing views of what was considered to be of historical value and concluded that the Society had poor progress in the past relative to the house because it was a personal project of Andy Deneau, who made mistakes with the best intentions, thus causing a great deal of conflict. If they were now given 60 days, they could make the necessary progress. The Mayor explained to Mr. Cook that it was doubtful the Council was going to make another motion at this time, and Mr. Cook should come back in two weeks when the matter would again be considered. Mrs. Patricia Bayley, 801 North Loara, expressed her deep concern over the contro- versy surrounding the structure. In order to set the record straight, Councilwoman KayWood confirmed that the house was moved onto its present site at Broadway and Manchester in September of 1976, and according to the staff report from the Building Division, the original structure had so many recent additions, alterations, and damage to the house in attempts to modernize it, that it was no longer anything reminiscent of the period and had no historical value, as attested by Mr. Leo Friis, the City's historian laureate. The only thing that could be said for the structure was that it was a very old house. RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for five minutes. (3:05 P.M.) 77-1147 .City Ha.ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977, 1:30 P.M. AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:10 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-54~ VARIANCE NO. 2936~ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9815~ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-55 AND VARIANCE NO. 2937: Application by William M. and Betty Jo Clow, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 to establish a 12-lot, 43-unit subdivision on property located on the north side of Simmons Avenue, east of Haster Street, with code waivers of: (a) maximum building height and, (b) minimum recreational-leisure area and to construct a 10-unit apartment complex with waiver of maximum building height on property located on the east side of Haster Street, south of Wilken Way. The City Clerk stated that a request for continuance of the subject petitions was received. The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present to elaborate relative to the request for continuance. Mr. Randy Bosch, Dan Rowland and Associates, Agent, 1000 West La Palma, explained that, based on Planning Commission approval and a letter from the Homeowners Association Attorney, Mr. Nicholas Netty, both he and Mr. Netty agreed that a three-week continuance would give an opportunity to meet again to solve all problems in the best interest of the community. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, public hearing on the subject reclassifications, tentative tract, and variances was continued for three weeks. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Kott, directing his remarks to the principals involved on both sides, stated he hoped at that time the matter would be settled one way or the other. He had information that was contradictory coming from all sides, one being that Mr. Clow promised there would be no two-story townhouses in the project and in discussion with the architect, two-story houses were, in fact, being planned. Something had to be worked out before he would vote favorably on the matters. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1750: Application by Richard JaY and Tonia Lynn Kaufman, to permit a children's group home on RS-7200 zoned property located at 803 Cinda Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-193 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, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 1750. The action of the Planning Commission was appealed by Mr. Kaufman, Director of Family Group Homes, and public hearing scheduled this date. The City Clerk explained that a request for continuance had been received from the applicant and, to date, 12 letters in opposition and 1 letter from the State Depart- ment of Health in favor had been received and copies submitted to the Council. 77-1148 C~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor asked for an indication, by a show of hands, how many people there were in the Chamber interested in the item; there were approximately 30 people. Mr. J. Mark Waxman, attorney, thereupon withdrew the request for a continuance. Councilman Seymour stated that it was brought to his attention that a sales associate with his firm was involved with the sale of the subject property, and based upon discussions with the City Attorney, a potential conflict of interest was involved. Therefore, he would abstain on the matter. He also clarified that, to the best of his knowledge when the sale took place, there was no intent to utilize the property in the way it was proposed to be used. Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber. (3:22 P.M.) Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. The Mayor first asked the City Attorney to comment on the letter dated October 14, 1977, with attachments, from the State Department of Health submitted to the Council. City Attorney Hopkins explained that the letter outlined the State program relative to licensed residential care homes for mentally handicapped persons, also informing the City of a case that had been decided by the Superior Court and upheld by the Appellate Court indicating Charter cities were subject to the provisions of the State Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 5115 and 5116. Those two sections of the Code provided that it was State policy to allow mentally- and physically-handicapped persons to be entitled to live in normal residential surroundings and should not be excluded because of their disability. The Welfare and Institutions Code also provided that the use of property for the care of six or fewer mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons was a residential use for such property for such purposes of zoning. Mr. Hopkins pointed out that an amendment to Section 5116 stated that, "nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit any city or county from requiring a conditional use permit in order to maintain any home pursuant to the provisions of the paragraph, provided that no conditions shall be imposed on such homes which are more restrictive than those imposed on other similar dwellings in the same zones unless such additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents." That court case thus imposed the sections upon the City of Anaheim as a charter city and State law applied. The question before the Council was with respect to the conditional use permit, and it was his opinion that the City may require a CUP provided it had no more restrictive con- ditions than those imposed on other similar dwellings. He believed that Mr. Waxman, representing Family Group Homes Foundation, would explain his position on that aspect of the Code section, which section was also subject to court interpretation. The Mayor stated it should be made clear that all those present in the Chamber in opposition should be aware that if the City Council, for whatever reason should deny the conditional use permit, if the applicant decided to litigate, there was a possibility he would prevail in the matter, and they would still end up with the home whether the Council approved it or not. 77-1149 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. J. Mark Waxman, Attorney representing Family Group Homes Foundation (FGH), 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 2500, Los Angeles, stated they were appealing Resolution PC77-193 passed by the City Planning Commission, denying the application of Family Group Homes by Conditional Use Permit No. 1750. It was hoped through his statements, various people connected with the Foundation, and neighbors, that compelling reasons could be given for the City Council to grant the conditional use permit. The first part of Mr. Waxman's presentation dealt with the legal aspects of the matter wherein he stated that in 1969, the State of California committed itself to the placement of people with emotional and mental disabilities in a community (Lanterman Mental Retardation Act of 1969). In 1970, Section 5115 of the Welfare and Institution Code was enacted. He thereupon submitted copies of the Code to the Council, both Section 5115, legislative intent, and Section 5116, property used for care of six or fewer handicapped persons or dependent or neglected children as residential use for zoning purposes, and then read them aloud; Section 5115 expressing that the use of property for the care of six or fewer mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons was a residential use of such property for such purposes of zoning; and Section 5116, wherein Mr. Waxman stated there was no authority for permit to be denied, but conditions could be imposed relative to the health and safety of the residents. Mr. Waxman then further elaborated on a recent judicial decision in the City of Los Angeles vs State of California, Department of Health, where a zoning ordinance in Los Angeles prohibited such a group home. The Supreme Court's decision stated this was an area where the city must yield to statewide concerns and cut-back on itm charter authority. While a city could require a conditional use permit and impose certain conditions, a permit could not be denied because it would be imposing conditions more restrictive than those imposed on any other families in the neigh- borhood. He also submitted a copy of Legislative Counsel of California Opinion dated June 22, 1972, giving that same conclusion and elaborated further on its con- tents emphasizing the fact that a hearing was denied by the State Supreme Court. City Attorney Hopkins clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that in Section 5116 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the end of the last sentence, "...unless such additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the resi- dents,'' meant the residents in the area at the present time. Mr. Waxman stated that one point that should be given attention was the fact that if it was found that certain specific things were threatening to the neighborhood from the home, then it might be possible to impose conditions to protect the residents. If the City Council determined that was the case, they could send the matter back to the Planning Commission asking them to provide specific findings or conditions considered appropriate for the operation of the home. The Mayor interjected and asked City Attorney Hopkins to give his opinion relative to the Legislative Analysis as to whether or not the City could legally deny the subject permit. 77-1150 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins stated that his office reviewed the entire matter, as well as the lawsuit Mr. Waxman referred to, and it was his opinion that the wording of Section 5116 of the Welfare and Institutions Code permitted the City Council to grant or deny the conditional use permit because, if the wording permitted the granting of a CUP, it would also imply that a denial would be proper, otherwise there would be no purpose in its being there. This, however, would be the subject of litigation because Mr. Waxman and the State took a different view. He clarified the City's view; having the right to grant, implied the right to deny, providing no more stringent requirements were imposed than on anyone else. Mr. Waxman interjected that to deny would be a more stringent requirement than on any other home in the area and that is why the second paragraph of Section 5116 was important. Councilman Kott requested that Mr. Waxman give him reasons why he should vote affirmatively on the CUP by pointing o~t the constitutional basis of all the statutes and regulatory decrees to which he alluded. Mr. Waxman first read excerpts from the City of Los Angeles vs. the State Department of Health, reiterating that the State Supreme Court denied a hearing on the case in 1977 which had the effect of affirming the case which went into a lengthy discussion of the pertinent Landerman-Petres-Short Act "of 1974. In the final analysis, it was determined that even though AB2406 was amehded to eliminate the specific reference to charter and general law cities, it was construed that the Welfare and Institu- tions Code, Section 5116, was applicable to both. Relative to the three attacks made by the City of Los Angeles, the court stated that a balancing problem was involved between statewide concerns and the concerns of people residing in the city; in this case pre-empting the city, just as provisions in the Federal Constitution do over the States. In answer to questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Waxman Stated that the State does not pay people to buy homes, but there was reimbursement involved in the amount of approximately $800 per month per child. However, he commented that there was nothing in the City zoning ordinance that made such reimbursement relevant although, he pointed out, that a great number of expenses were involved in running the home, and this particular home lost money. Further, Mr. Waxman stated there had been no reported cases as yet dealing with the question of a subsequent ruling against the existing neighborhood in favor of the home if a problem of disruption of the normal neighborhood routine occurred. Mr. Waxman stated there was a simple remedy relative to complaints and recourse was through the State since there was an entire mechanism in the statute for com- plaints and subsequent resolution. Summarizing his legal presentation, Mr. Waxman stated his interpretation of the law was that a permit could not outright be denied, and the second interpretation, in analyzing the particular resolution in question, there were no specific findings made by the Planning Commission as to why reasons for non-compliance with the ordinance. The only specific factors were linked to "disruption" not explained in the resolution itself, thus it was not in compliance with either State law or the City's own CUP laws. Other conditions stated had to do with lot size. A check of the neighborhood also revealed that within a 4- or 5-block radius of the Group Home, only one home was for sale, evidencing the fact that it could be accepted if the residents in the area could give it a chance. 77-1151 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Waxman if he had seen any of the letters which the Council received from the neighbors. Mr. Waxman indicated he had seen only one, but understood that the community was upset basically as a result of one particular incident which was beyond the control of the house involved. Mr. Waxman then indicated he wished to present a group of people to speak to the Council relative to the matter. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, City Attorney Hopkins explained that although it was at the Council's discretion as to whether or not they wished to hear the presentation, in the interest of due process, bare essentials of the provisions of both parties should be heard, but a time restriction could be placed on the length of such presentation. A poll of the Council present indicated they were amenable but with a time limit for those who would speak. Mr. Waxman then presented the following people who spoke for the Home in an official capacity, as well as two residents in the area. Mr. Richard Kaufman, 1860 Beverly Glen Boulevard, Apartment 4, Los Angeles, Director of Family Group Homes Foundation, stated that FGH presently consisted of five resi- dential homes providing family home treatment for dependent children from Orange County located in Placentia, Costa Mesa, Westminster, Riverside and Anaheim. Homes were staffed with married couples possessing training in child care; a psycho%ogist who saw the children on a weekly basis; a social worker devoting twenty hours a week to the home, not necessarily in the home itself, but meeting with the schools and the natural parents. A relief staff was employed two days a week filling the same role as the house parents. Traditionally, these children were placed outside of Orange County, but in 1974 the Board of Supervisors felt it was their responsi- bility to have the children placed in the community from which they came. There was a misconception in the money that was acquired by the Home. Although it was a considerable amount, many expenses were paid from it such as base salaries, office expenses, clinical services, and the like, and the home experienced a loss as documented by an audit. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Kaufman explained the children ranged in age from 12 to 18 (the oldest being 17 in the subject home) and, further, that a similar situation occurred in Costa Mesa as was now before the Council, but the residents finally came to accept the Home. Some cities did not require a permit; Placentia, Costa Mesa and Westminister did, and applications for a conditional use permit were filed after the homes were established in all three cases. Dr. James Colbert, clinical psychologist, 1920 East Katella, Orange, explained why such homes were established, the main reason being institutions for children were not working and the same children were coming repeatedly during the six years he worked in the Halls of Los Angeles County. An exception was noted when children were placed in community-based homes where they could live like any other child. The fundamental principle was, when a child is treated normally, he is apt to act that way. At the Home, they talked to the children, and their parents were seen in clinical offices. Thus, professional treatment was done elsewhere in an attempt 77-1152 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. to normalize the environment where the children were located. They (FGH) believed in the principal of respect and responsibility to the community despite the original incidents which occurred. They were responsible people attempting to do a respon- sible job. Dr. Colbert then explained the incident in which a car was set on fire, and in a counseling session at the home, the boy responsible admitted what he did and he was immediately turned over to the police and subsequently transported to Juvenile Hall. He then elaborated upon the financial remedies given by the Home to the person whose car was demolished in the fire, as well as another car that suffered paint damage, emphasizing the fact that they acted responsibly from the beginning to the end of the incident and if other families in the community acted in the same fashion, there would be less a need for group homes. In concluding, Dr. Colbert stated that, in fact, families in the community had contacted the Home for assistance with their own children. Thus, they could be a positive influence if given the opportunity. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood who stated the problem seemed to be going on outside of the house and not inside, Dr. Colbert explained they were attempting in every way to be accepted by the community. He also stated that there was one boy who was no longer at the Home because they did not feel he was suited to the community and they now had two new boys who were thoroughly evaluated before being allowed to be placed in the Home. As well, the original house parents were replaced because they were ineffective. Complete psychological evaluations were now being performed beforehand. Mr. David Peter, Family Group Home house parent, 803 Cinda, submitted his resume to the Council and briefed them on its contents which indicated he and his wife had vast experience in working with adolescent children, having worked with the State of Oregon for seven years and his wife for four years. Since they had taken over as house parents, they noted progress, the noise had been cut down, they provided constant supervision 24 hours a day, five days a week, and relief house parents played the same role the remaining two days. In answer to questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilmen Roth and Kott, Mr. Peter relayed the following: the boys usually walked to school in other loca- tions unless the distance was too far; friends visited inside the Home and likewise they visited friends; the boys carried on normal activities outside the Home (going to and from school, visiting friends: and the like); to Mr. Peter's knowledge, they did not drink beer, curfew time was 10:00 on weekdays and midnight Friday and Satur- day; the 12- and 13-year old boys were allowed to stay out until midnight on weekends if they were with the other boys; no loud parties were conducted; and if the boys were not home by 10:00, the police were called and restrictions imposed. Mrs. Terry Peter clarified that the boys had to be in the house by 9:00 P.M. unless they made prior arrangements to be out until 9:30. They had to be in bed by 10:00, lights out .and radio turned down by 10:30 on school days. Mr. Paul Crone, 805 South Cinda, resident adjacent to the Home on the south side, stated that it was true when the boys first came to the community they were rowdy, but the situation was now much improved. They did abide by curfew regulations and he did not see them out after 10:00. They had friends in the neighborhood who came to visit, which showed the boys were well liked by their own peers. 77-1153 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Cecilia Flores, 2841 East Diana, explained that she was one of the people whose car was paint damaged, and the Home was cooperative in getting the car repainted just as any parent would be under the same circumstances. She had been at the Home many times and the boys were just like any others in the neighborhood. Six boys would get rowdy on occasion, but they would mind themselves. She did notice a number of youth around the Home, but they were all the children in the neighborhood. Because of the Home, the boys were afforded the opportunity to live in a family atmosphere which was good for them. Mr. Skip Locke, Department of Social Services, Coordination of Group Homes in Residential Treatment, 1801 North College Avenue, Santa Ana, explained he was not personally familiar with the subject Home, but with others. His job was to coordinate services for disturbed children, and families were referred to them for placement from local schools, doctors, police departments, and juvenile courts. Children were placed with Family Group Homes because of disturbance in their own families and, in most cases, they worked with the child until they were ready to return to their own home. They experienced a consistently good reputation within the community, schools, and other agencies with whom they worked. He had heard complaints from other homes although secondhand. He further emphasized that, as mandated by State law, juvenile courts and the Orange County Board of Supervisors, chidren were to be located in family homes in the community from which they came if at all possible. Mr. Ralph H. Zeledon, Residential Care Facilities Specialist, Treatment Services Division, California Department of Health, 7520 Marconi, Sacramento, explained that community care homes had been very effective, and the statutes enacted by the State relative to community care facilities and licensed residential homes specified that such homes were non-medical and only those persons not in need of medical care were admitted to them. The problem was so severe that the 1974 Legislature required the Department of Health to submit a zoning report to the legislature on the impact of zoning ordinances and practices. The finding was that restrictive ordinances and practices were common and a major obstacle to the establishment of needed homes throughout the State. They were most anxious to work with the local communities just as they had been doing with Los Angeles in the negotiations taking place for over a year to solve differences (the City of Los Angeles vs the State Department of Health). He then read an excerpt from a report prepared by the State Department of Health expanding on the problem and the impact of local zoning ordinances to the establishment of such facilities. As well, he briefed the Council on his communication of October 14, 1977, empha- sizing the difficulty in trying to place children'within their own county and outlined examples where a great percentage of children were placed out of county due to lack of suitable homes within their own county especially within the County of Orange. They were not trying to set up homes with lack of supervision and allowing misbehavior. He pointed out, however, that Section 1538 of the Health and Safety Code designated the licensing agency responsible to handle any complaints. Mr. Zeledon stressed this was a viable recourse to take and should be used because, without so doing, no disciplinary action could be instituted. The Mayor reiterated that 13 letters of opposition had been received (one just having been submitted to the Council) opposing Conditional Use Permit No. 1750, and a petition signed by approximately 50 residents had also been submitted. He then asked if representatives of those who were opposed wished to speak. 77-1154 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. The following persons spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 1750 for the below listed reasons and gave related comments: Mr. George Knapp, 804 Cinda: 1. In this case, they were not dealing with mentally retarded or handicapped persons, but juvenile delinquents. 2. The major problem was lack of supervision. 3. There was continuous misrepresentation by the petitioner, Richard Kaufman of Family Group Homes from the start. 4. There was an appreciable increase in traffic because of people who served the home. 5. There was a constant turnover of children in the home, as well as turnover in the Group parents. 6. A number of untoward incidences occurred designated by the many letters sub- mitred and many times the police had to be notified. 7. The home was operating as a business illegally since July 5, 1977, with a license having been issued by the State as late as October 17, 1977. 8. The neighborhood was outraged and two or three homes in the immediate area were for sale with many others planned to be sold, pending disposition of the matter. 9. The City required a conditional use permit because the operation was in viola- tion of the City's definition of a family. Since the home was being operated with parents and relief parents, the relief parents being an unmarried couple, the addition of only one child caused it to be in violation of that definition. 10. The residents urged the Council to take immediate steps to terminate the business without compromise. Mrs. Karen Ouellet, 800 South Cinda: 1. The foul language and obscenities from the boys was intolerable. 2. The situation caused mental anguish to herself as well as emotional disturbance to her children; she could not leave her house or get a babysitter because her daughter did not want to be left alone. 3. The boys threatened her children and, in many respects, all of the neighborhood children. 4. The mental health and welfare of the residents in the neighborhood was suffering. 5. If the conditional use permit was granted, the residents were planning to sue Mr. Kaufman, and she, as well as others, were planning to sell their homes. 77-1155 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 6. She and her children were constantly harassed by the boys; they took belts to the children, threw footballs at them, and tried to run them down with mopeds. 7. Other children in the neighborhood were afraid to come home from school to play because they did not want to be subjected to the boys from the Home playing in the street, as well as girls who appeared to come from other group homes. 8. The boys were out swimming late at night and there was noise intrusion from the stereo. 9. She was not allowed to approach the home to discuss the situation, and she was afraid of the boys. 10. They made telephone calls to her home constantly, averaging at times, 5 to 10 calls a day, some of those in the early morning hours. They shouted obscenities over the phone not only to her, but also to her children, directed to her. Before concluding, Councilman Kott asked Mrs. Ouellet how this situation impacted her property. Mrs. Ouelett stated that if someone was to look for a home in the neighborhood and discovered the situation, they would not purchase a home there, thus it adversely affected the property values in the neighborhood. Mr. Jack Knowles, 741 Stehley Street: 1. The car that was initially demolished was burnt to the ground almost directly in front of his home, and contrary to testimony by the house parents~relative to the children being in the house at 10:00 p.m., the fire occurred at 2:15 a.m. which could be verified by Fire Department records. 2. He was subjected to being called names while watering his yard. 3. The children were mean and destructive, otherwise they would not burn cars, subject neighbors to abusive language or strike small children. He did not want these children in the neighborhood. Mr. Allen Davis, 2823 East Verde (resident directly behind the Home): 1. Empathized with Mrs. Ouellet because, in his opinion, she suffered most from the situation. 2. He emphasized there was absolutely no supervision in the house whatsoever and gave several examples to illustrate his point, also demonstrating that the children did not listen or comply with instruction given them by the house parents. 3. His backyard had been flooded twice to the point where his lawn mower was under water because the Group Home had left their water on all night long. 4. The house was, in fact, unapproachable because of the actions of the children living there. 77-1156 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Davis' testimony concluded the presentation of those speaking in opposition. In summation, Mr. Waxman stated there were two things that were clear: (1) there may have been initial problems at the home, and (2) those problems had been rectified as evidenced by the changes made in the testimony given that the situation had improved. The people at the Home did not want to shirk their responsibilities. They wanted to be responsive to the community, and they were willing to meet with the neighbors to discuss their feelings and complaints. He suggested if the Council felt there had been some improvement, in order to avoid further hearings and liti- gation, that a temporary permit be issued for six months, at the end of which time the situation could be evaluated to determine whether or not the Home was able to be accepted by the neighborhood. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Roth emphasized that Section 5116 of the Welfare and Institutions Code was most pertinent, in his opinion, wherein it stated that no conditions shall be imposed on other similar dwellings in the same zones unless such additional conditions were necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents. As well, the City Attorney advised that the City Council had the authority to grant or deny the conditional use permit. Because of his deep concern for the health and safety of Anaheim residents, he could not support Conditional Use Permit No. 1750. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that while it may have been a wise and noble move in 1969 when the change took place relative to locating homes in the community, the idea was to bring about a cut in the State budget, shifting the cost to the county and local budget. However, when it created mental anguish in the neigh- borhood in which it was located, it was not a healthy situation for anyone, and that was not the intent. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environ- mental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION: Councilman Kott commented on the testimony given in support of the Home and, although the idea was a noble one as Councilwoman Kaywood stated, he felt he could speak to the effect and impact the situation had on the community · relative to the testimony in opposition. He then read Article I, Section I, of the Constitution of the State of California stating, "Ail people are by nature free and independent to have inalienable rights among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty and acquiring, possessing and protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness and privacy." It appeared to him that the State had attempted, and in some cases, pre-empted the cities with bureaucratic regulatory mechanisms which he considered to be wrong. He contended the State did not have that authority since consideration should be given to the taxpayer resident who invested his life savings into his home and was now being deprived of his property rights without due process since in this particular case, the result was detrimental in relation to the value of his property. He also stated it was not proper because it constituted a misuse and gift of public funds since the State of California was giving money to an enterprising organization, using its cloak of 77-1157 .City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. government in not requiring the payment of license fees whereby others made a profit. The City's legal department should look at the matter from that standpoint if it should come to litigation. Councilman Kott thereupon offered Resolution No. 77R-680 for adoption denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1750 on the foregoing basis. Before action was taken on the resolution, the Mayor suggested and asked Councilman Kott if he would accept and incorporate additional findings in his resolution as follows: (1) that children residing in the subject residence have, as indicated, threatened and harassed the neighbors; (2) children residing in such residence, as testimony has been given, are not properly supervised; (3) children residing in the residence, as testimony has been given, have exhibited delinquent and destructive conduct in the neighborhood. The Mayor further commented that he took a simplistic view of the problem, and although, he did not disagree in philosophy with what Dr. Colbert and the Group were trying to do, as a local elected official, he would not deviate from repre- senting the majority of any neighborhood, thus he would vote for denial. A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution incorporating the additional findings given by the Mayor and as agreed to by Councilman Kott. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-680: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1750. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom None Seymour None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-680 duly pass&d and adopted. The Mayor reiterated, for the benefit of those in the Chamber, that should the applicant decide to litigate the matter, it was possible that the City would be overruled, and they would be faced with having to accept the situation. The City Attorney then clarified for Mr. Knowles that since the Council denied the conditional use permit, it would render further occupancy of the Group Home illegal beyond a reasonable period of time which could be ten to thirty days so that the State, Mr. Kaufman, and the Foundation could take appropriate action. If there was failure to act, the City would then take action to enforce the zoning laws accordingly. Mr. Zeledon, in answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, stated that the address to which residents could register complaints was: Facilities License Section, District Administrator, 28 Civic Center Plaza, Room 850, Santa Aha, California, 92701, telephone 558-4001. He suggested that the complaints be made in writing with all pertinent information included, and thereafter, they would be followed up in a responsible manner. 77-1158 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour returned to the Council Chamber. (5:18 P.M.) RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-37 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1445 AND 1446 APPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS: Request submitted by George Riley, for approval of revised plans to develop a commercial shopping center, service station, and facility for the treatment and education of pediatric/psychiatric patients on proposed CL zoned property located on the north side of McKinnon Drive east of Lakeview Avenue. The City Planning Commission recommended the matter be discussed at a public meeting, and a new environmental assessment be submitted with notification to nearby residents. The City Clerk stated that a communication from the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association was received supporting the Planning Commission recommendation and requesting input from HACMAC on the matter. Miss Santalahti explained that following the Planning Commission review, the architect for the developer submitted further revisions of the site plan incorpor- ating a reversal of the service station so that the pump island now faced away from the intersection and toward the con~nercial proposal, and the number of driveways on McKinnon were reduced from two to one to lessen the impact of the proposal on the street. Additionally, the plan modified the arrangement of the original commercial building on the southerly half of the property from a mall-type arrangement to three buildings in an "L" configuration. The overall square footage was reduced by 300 feet and parking increased from 382 to 495. In answer to the Mayor, Miss Santalahti explained that the Commission was concerned with the environmental assessment since originally a negative declaration was proposed. The Commission felt it should be reviewed again because of development that occurred in the area, basically the housing to the east which was not fully occupied originally. Some people from HACMAC did see the plan but they wanted more time to review it. Opposition was to the commercial use primarily. Councilman Roth asked if the developer already had approval of the existing condi- tional use permits, thus enabling them to perform immediately if they so desired. Miss Santalahti stated that they did have such approval with drawings having been approved in 1974 with a time extension granted in March, retroactive to February 5, 1977. If they submitted their building plans, permits would be issued, assuming changes were minimal. They were asking for a change in the drawings which, in effect, generally approved their proposal, i.e., the reduction of driveways was to the liking of the Traffic Engineer and the increase in parking would have less impact on the area. Although the residents of the area may not understand that the requested changes would improve the project, as suggested by Councilman Kott, Miss Santalahti stated that violent opposition was directed to the commercial zoning, but.nothing could be done about the situation at this time. Mr. Steven Silverstein, Attorney for Canyon Plaza Development, stated that the problem was one of misunderstanding. They were prepared to file for building permits under the old approved CUP within days and, should they do so, building permits would be issued. However, they wanted the modifications because City staff requested certain changes, which changes it was agreed between all the 77-1159 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. parties, would be improvements for the area. The opposition, one person in particular, seemed to think they were asking for modification to now construct a service station or commercial improvements when, in fact, their intent was exactly the opposite because CUPs were already approved and granted. He clarified that they wanted to move the pumps from the street to the back inside the project, add additional shrubbery, and rearrange the buildings to make the project more attractive, and result in better traffic flow. If the Council turned down the re- quest for modification, they were going to file for building permits under the old plan and build accordingly. He predicted that after the building started, people from HACMAC would then be requesting that they change the plan back to the way they wanted to do it now. Also, they were presently under a time contraint since they agreed in March they would be under construction prior to the end of the year. Councilwoman Kaywood referred to a letter dated October 13, 1977, from Mary Dinndorf on Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association stationery wherein she stated that in January when she (Dinndorf) spoke in favor of the project, she was erroneous in so doing and now she was opposed. Councilwoman Kaywood did not know on whose behalf Mrs. Dinndorf previously spoke in favor and on whose behalf she was now speaking in opposition. Mr. Silverstein clarified that he has spoken to Mrs. Dinndorf in great detail, and at the time, she was their biggest advocate, however, today she was opposed. Councilman Kott inquired as to the status of the proposed psychiatric hospital which was part of the project. Mr. George Riley, Architect, stated that the psychiatric facility was presently not the issue, and they were trying to address only the commercial portion and the service station. They had not yet master planned the medical suite and the psychiatric section. Speaking for himself, it was his opinion that the psychiatric hospital should not be constructed there, and he was trying to discourage it. The present intent of the developer was that it not be a psychiatric section, but medical buildings. However, they had not studied the area in depth. The Mayor contended that the deletion of the facility for the treatment and educa- tion of pediatric/psychiatric patients was part of the approval, and if it was 'going to be deleted, it was obviously a major change of plans and thus, should be resub- mitted to the Planning Commission. Mr. Riley countered that at this point in time they were not planning to delete that section, and the plan submitted included the facility just as four years prior. At the request of the Mayor, Mr. Silverstein stipulated that it was the applicant's intention to develop a commercial shopping center, service station and facility for the treatment and education of pediatric/psychiatric patients. Councilman Kott read an excerpt from the minutes of January 25, 1977 Council meet- ing wherein a Mr. Howard Rosenberg (who is still a partner in the development as clarified by Mr. Silverstein) indicated that his partnership sought to develop the property on a long-range basis with a child care health center and not a psychi- atric hospital. 77-1160 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. A brief discussion followed between Councilman Kott and Mr. Silverstein relative to the matter wherein Mr. Silverstein was of the opinion that the psychiatric hospital was not an issue at this point, and it was the last thing on their list of priorities. If they deleted it, they would be asking for another modification as previously explained by the Mayor which would give the Council the ability to deny the whole conditional use permit. Therefore, they would have to be prepared to move on the CUP under the basis it was originally granted. Also, as pointed out by the Mayor, the service station had to be developed concurrently with the commercial development, and that was the problem, they wanted to start the commercial and service station at the same time. Miss Santalahti then briefed the Council on how phased developments were handled, and in this instance, if the hospital was left until the last, that would be an acceptable staff approval. If they wanted to delete it and instead put in a few thousand square feet of commercial area, the project would have to go back to the Commission or the Council. Otherwise, they would have a vacant piece of commercial land and could not obtain building permits on it. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, revised plans to develop a commercial shopping center, service station, and facility for the treat- ment and education of pediatric/psychiatric patients on proposed CL zoned property located on the north side of McKinnon Drive east of Lakeview Avenue were approved. MOTION CARRIED. 131: CALTRANS CITIZEN AESTHETIC ADVISOR: Request by Caltrans for nominations for a citizen aesthetic advisor for a proposed sound barrier project on both sides of the Route 57 Freeway between Ball Road and the Route 91 Freeway was submitted. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, Mrs. Linda Michaels was nominated to serve on the subject committee. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, Madeline Krpan was nominated to serve on the subject committee. 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 Theador H. Morris for loss of personal property purportedly sustained as a result of theft at the Mechanical Maintenance Division on or about July 13-15, 1977. b. Claim submitted by Violet Higgins for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of a fall on the Library lawn on or about August 2, 1977. c. Claim submitted by Arden Hook for personal injuries purportedly sustained from a slip and fall accident on the sidewalk at Anaheim Stadium on or about August 2, 1977. 77-1161 qity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October !8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. d. Claim submitted by Parkview Convalescent Hospital for property damages purportedly sustained during use of heavy equipment by City workmen on or about October 4, 1977. e. Claim submitted by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on behalf of Irving Schlesinger, insured, for vehicle damage purportedly sustained as a result of a collision with a city-owned vehicle on or about September 22, 1977. f. Claim submitted by Shirley M. Whitehead, John McCarrick, a minor, and Robert Whitehead II, a minor, for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of a collision with a city-owned vehicle on or about October 1, 1977. g. Claim submitted by Robert W. Whitehead and Shirley M. Whitehead for vehicle damages purportedly sustained as a result of a collision with a city-owned vehicle on or about September 30, 1977. h. Claim submitted by Clydean Mote for vehicle damages purportedly sustained as a result of an accident involving a city-owned vehicle on or about October 11, 1977. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 175: Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Order of Dismissal, Application No. 57232 of Southern California Gas Company to increase revenues to offset the impact on revenue requirements of long-term storage pursuant to a proposed subsection (o) Gas Storage Adjustment (GSA) to Southern California Gas Company's Rule No. 2. b. 175: Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Notice of Hearing, Application No. 57573 in the matter of Advice Letter No. 1092 of Southern California Gas Company to increase revenues to offset changed gas costs under its approved PGA procedures resulting from adjustments in the price of natural gas purchased from Transwestern Pipeline Company, E1 Paso Natural Gas Company and Pacific Interstate Transmission Company. c. 175: Monthly reports for August 1977 - Electrical and Customer Service Divisions. d. 107 and 156: Monthly reports for September, 1977 - Building Division and Police. e. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of regular and adjourned regular meeting of September 28, 1977. f. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of September 27, 1977. g. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of June 23, August 11 and September 1, 1977. h. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of September 13 and 27, 1977. i. 105: Housing Commission - Minutes of September 7, 1977. 77-1162 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 3. 108: DINNER DANCING PLACE AND PUBLIC DANCE HALL PERMITS: The following permits were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Dinner Dancing Place Permit for dancing Sunday through Saturday, 7:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M., at Jezebel's, 125 North State College Boulevard. (Karl Robert Nielsen, applicant) b. Dinner Dancing Place Permit for dancing Sunday through Saturday, 7:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M., at the Indonesian Bali Restaurant, 2141 South Harbor Boulevard. (R0nald Elfring, applicant) c. Public Dance Hall Permit for dancing Tuesday through Saturday, 9:00 P.M. to 12:00 Midnight at the Casa Verdugo Mexican Restaurant, 2500 West Lincoln Avenue. (Burgman & Decell Development Corp., applicant) MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 77R-681 through 77R-684, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-681: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (State of California; Myung Shik Yun, et ux.; Donn E. West, et ux.; Susan D. Tucker; Dr. William J. Calvy, et ux.; Thomas Torres, et ux.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-682: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: HASTER STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, N/O TO SIMMONS AVENUE IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-4309-708- 16-0000; APPROVING THE DESIGNS PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened November 17, 1977, 2:00 P.M.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-683: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: VAN BUREN STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, FROM CORONADO STREET TO LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-4309-708-16-0000; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened November 17, 1977, 2:00 P.M.). 113: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-684: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS, DOCUMENTS, INSTRUMENTS, BOOKS AND PAPERS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. 77-1163 .City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 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 Nos. 77R-681 through 77R-684, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NOS. 3776 AND 3777: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance Nos. 3776 and' 3777 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3776: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-15, RM-1200) ORDINANCE NO. 3777: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-17, CL) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3776 and 3777 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3778: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3778 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE~NO. 3778: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(83), CCR) 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. 3778 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NOS. 3779 AND 3780: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 3779 and 3780 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3779: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-24(23), ML) ORDINANCE N6..3780: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-46(6), RS-HS-10,000, Tract No. 8465) 77-1164 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:40 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK