1975/09/1675-841
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1975~ 11:00 A..~Pf.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourne~ regular
session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IIaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
ABSEI~r: COUNCIL MFPIBERS: Pebley
PRESEMT: CITY ~.,t~NAGER: Keith A. lfurdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Alona M. Hougard
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order.
RECESS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the
City Council recessed to the Management Control Center for Executive Session to
consider personnel matters. Councilman Pebiey absent. MOTION CARRILD. (11:~5
A. l,i. )
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all ~iembers of the City
Council being present, with the exception of Councilman PeLiey. (12:44 P.SI.)
ADJOURI~IENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Sneegas seconded
the motion. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 12:45 P.M.
L., I I. I IIIIIII I
I1! I I I II III II ~ I I IJLII
75-842
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas (left 5:58 P.M.)
and Thom.
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: John Harding
CITY CLERK: Alona M. Hougard
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
FINANCE DIRECTOR: M. R. Ringer
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance
to the meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Randy Rhodes of the Melodyland Hotline Center gave the
invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ralph G. Sneegas led the Assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meetings held July 29, 1975
and August 12, 1975, and Adjourned Regular Meeting held August 14, 1975 were
approved as corrected (typographical errors) on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Seymour. Because of absence, Mayor Thom abstained from
voting on the minutes of July 29, 1975. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Sneegas 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 ordinance or resolution. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the'City in the
amount of $937,528.44, in accordance with the 1975-76 Budget, were approved.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-488 - ESTABLISHING NEW JOB CLASSIFICATION - POLICE WORKER I:
On report and recommendation of the Personnal Director, Councilman Pebl~y
offered Resolution No. 75R-488 for adoption, establishing a new job classifica-
tion for Grant Funded Police Worker I, assigned to sub-salary Schedule 480E
($832 per month).
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AME~ING RESOLUTION
NO. 74R-520 ESTABLISHING A NEW JOB CLASSIFICATION AND RATE OF PAY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL ME~ERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL ~MBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-488 duly passed and adopted.
EXECUTIVE SESSION - PERSONNEL MATTERS: On request of the Personnel Directors
it was determined that the Council would adjourn this meeting to Friday,
September 19, 1975 at 10:00 A.M. for the purpose of meeting in Executive
Session.
ADMISSION-AMUSEMENT TAX PROPOSAL: Mayor Thom noted that for the past two weeks the
Council has had an opportunity to evaluate public input received on the proposed
admissions tax, however, what the public opinion did not address was the basic
problem of 12 to 15 years of needed capital improvements of which there remains
75-8'43
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
in excess of $65 million to do. Despite the urging of the City Council that
alternatives to the admission-amusement tax proposal be submitted and several
meetings with the various opponents of the tax proposal, nothing has been re-
solved except defining the problem. The question remains, will an admission-
amusement tax provide the answer to the City's long-needed capital improvement
program?
Mayor Thom advised that it is very evident from the input received that the
community is very evenly divided on this issue. He voiced the opinion that since
the bulk of funds for capital improvements have been utilized over the past 12
to 15 years to enhance the commercial recreational area to make it attractive for
commercial enterprises, that it is fair and just to ask that segment of the com-
munity to assist the City in garnering a source of revenue to reimburse those
other areas of the City which have forfeited their capital improvement funds.
However, the extreme polarization of the communHty on the subject has led him
to wonder whether the political battle which would ensue, and which he would be
more than willing to wage, would be worth the schism that it would create in the
community. Mayor Thom advised that after considering this situation, he frankly
is unwilling to take the risk of splitting the community into two factions which
would perhaps not be able to unite to work positively t° resolve the problem.
He therefore announced that he was reluctantly withdrawing his support for the
proposed admission-amusement tax ordinance.
Mayor Thom requested that those present not read his actions wrong, that he.
is not unwilling to fight the political battle necessary to establish the admis-
sion-amusement tax, but is withdrawing his support because he feels that the City
should not have to undergo that type of split. He remarked that he feared the
battle which would ensue might jeopardize the recent efforts put forth in the
community towards redevelopment and reorganization of the City's Departments, in
which areas there is still a lot of work to be accomplished. He remarked that he
would not reconsider his position until such time as he is able to detect an
overwhelming support for the tax.
Councilman Seymour observed that this situation proves the citizens can beat
City Hall and, quite frankly, he believes this is a very healthy sign. He further
remarked that as long as the citizenry has the ability to form the non-apathetic
type of groups evidenced here, the City has no cause to worry.
Councilman Seymour expressed disappointment at this juncture with
his own inability to articulate to the community the reality of the problem of
capital improvements which have been put off for over a decade. He remarked
he was also disappointed because the problem itself became so confused and
muddy the issue appeared to be the construction of a new City Hall; and that
he was finally disappointed because the problem still exists - it has not
and will not go away.
Councilman Seymour stated that he has great respect for the Mayor, but he does
not agree with the position the Mayor has just announced. He stated that he feels
when an issue has been so hotly debated and has aroused the interest, desire, anger
and frustration of the citizens as this one has, the political body should not put
that issue aside but should let the people make the decision in the voting booth.
He felt that the people should also be allowed to determine whether they would
prefer a bond issue for capital improvement needs. He urged that the Council
not walk away from the problem or look the other way. He stated that he would
not be afraid to place this taxing proposal before the citizens of Anaheim
since, although he agreed with the Mayor that it might create a severe split,
he also believed that once the election was over, the citizens of Anaheim
would once again pull together. He concluded that it disturbs him that the
people of Anaheim are not going to have the opportunity to decide this
question for themselves.
Councilwoman Kaywood remarked that she has always been in favor of
receiving the opinion of the people on every issue if it i8 possible to get
the facts to them. She noted that when these issues arise, however, what are
presented other than facts are theatrics, embellishments and prejudices. She
~ ~ r I ~ I IIIII II ,- I I ~ III II III I ~
75-844
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Sep. tember 16~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
stated that she is going along with Mayor Thom's position on this issue, based
on what she has already explained was a very agonizing decision for her since,
in reality, she has always felt that the people should pay for these improvements
in long-term bonds.
Councilwoman Kaywood advised, in response to some of the comments received
in the mail, that this Council has adopted a very responsive attitude towards
the public; that no one has been refused the time to discuss their problem.
This is the attitude she feels the Council should have and is one of the reasons
she ran for Council. Councilwoman Kaywood concluded that she would really like
to see the admission-amusement tax measure placed on the ballot, so that it could
be put to rest one way or the other, but agrees that this could not be accomplished
without tearing the community apart,*at this particular time. She also expressed
concern that the State would levy and collect such a tax and simply bypass the City.
Councilman Pebley advised that he has always felt the bond issue is the best
financing method for capital improvements since then the people who will be using
the improvements over the next 30 years will also be paying the~bill. He stated
that he hoped future Councils would place the bonding decision before the voters
again and, in that event, urged those in the audience to support the bonding attempt.
Councilman ?ebley noted that the newspapers in 1968 fought the proposed bond. issue
for capital improvements, and they opposed the admission-amusement tax proposal, and
would most likely oppose a utility surcharge.
Councilman Sneegas stated that the mail he has received on the admission-
amusement tax was running more in the order of 20 to 1 against, rather than
evenly divided. He questioned the statement that the bulk of improvements have
been performed in the commercial recreation area without benefits to the home-
owner. He noted the City property tax rate of $1.05 is a benefit enjoyed by
the property owners and which has also aided in attracting businesses which
have proSpered and offered employment. He noted that most surrounding cities
have tax rates which are considerably higher, and that the Anaheim citizen
has received for the price of $1.05 per $100 assessed valuation, the very best
in police and fire services and a very well run City in his estimation.
Councilman Sneegas stated that there are many arguments as to why a bond
proposition on the ballot failed. He observed that this situation is not unique
to Anaheim and can usually be attributed to one of the following reasons: (1)
that the voters received insufficient information to realize the necessity of
the improvements; (2) that the voters have sufficient information but still
refuse to finance the improvement; (3) the voters are fed up with the amount of
money being taken out of the private sector and put into government. Councilman
Sneegas concluded that he cannot help but think the third reason expresses the
majority opinion, and that government needs to reevaluate its priorities.
After each Council Member had the opportunity to express his opinion publicly,
Mayor Thom stated that the issue of the admission-amusement tax Was concluded for
the present time.
BOMB THREAT: Mayor Thom read a notice announcing that a threat of an explosive
device having been placed in the City Hall had just been received; that the
Police and Fire Departments are investigating and request the building be
cleared as quickly as possible.
RECESS: Mayor Thom, with the consent of the Council Members, immediately recessed
the meeting. (2:08 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (2:45 P.M.)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1475 - PUBLIC HEARING - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSpi: In
accordance with legal notice duly served~ published~ and posted in accordance
with law, public hearing on an Order to Show Cause why Conditional Use Permit
No. 1475 establishing a half-way house for alcoholism and drug related problems
at 205 South Claudina Street should not be revoked for failure to comply
with the conditions imposed by the City in granting the permit.
See City Council Minutes of October 28, 1975, Page No. 75-946, Minutes.
75-845
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Reports from the City Attorney's Office and Planning Department were sub-
mitted. No additional verbal report was presented.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or his Agent were present and wished to
address the Council. Mr. Delia, Co-Director of the Get Going Program, 205 South
Claudina Street, Anaheim~ advised that he was representing Mr. Alvarado. He
submitted a prepared statement dated September 16, 1975 indicating that the
property owner of 205 South Claudina Street was notified by registered letter
this date that the Get Going Program will be vacatingthese premises in 30 days.
Mr. Delia indicated that the facilities at 205South Claudina Street are
not adequate for the purposes of their program, and because of the objections
from nearby residential property owners and also because of the Building Code
violations, they intend to relocate at a more suitable site, preferably in a
commercial or industrial neighborhood. He requested a 120-day extension on the
conditional use permit~ thereby allowing the operation of the half-way house
during the transition period, since they have enrollees in residence and employees
whom they would like to be able to retain in the program. He related that the
Get Going Program has taken over the rehabilitation work which was being per-
formed at this location by Sponsors, Inc., and is just now beginning to receive
recognition for their work. He advised that he is currently negotiating for
two other potential sites for relocation of the half-way house.
At the request of the Mayor, the City Attorney explained to the Applicant
that a conditional use permit cannot be transferred to another property; that it
would be necessary, upon relocation of the half-way house, to terminate Conditional
Use Permit No. 1475 and apply for a conditiional use permit to conduct the half-way
house at the new location.
Mr. Delia was referred to the Planning Department for further information on
the conditional use permit application procedure.
Councilman Pebley suggested that the best solution would be to allow the
Applicant 60 days to relocate.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chamber (2:55 P.M.)
Mr. Gerald Bushore, property owner at 205 and 209 East Broadway, Anaheim,
advised that he and the property owners and residents he represents would be
agreeable to the 60-day extension proposed, but cautioned that the neighbors do
not want to see a situation similar to that on South Anaheim Boulevard created.
Mrs. Oneida Copeland, 207 South Claudina Street, Anaheim also indicated
agreement with allowing the Get Going Program 60 days to relocate.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council, there being
no response, he declared the hearing closed.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City
Council declared their intent to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 1475 and
continued decision on the Order to Show Cause to the meeting of November 18, 1975,
to permit the half-way house operation time to relocate and make application for
conditional use permit at their new site. Councilwoman Kaywood temporarily
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood returned to the Council Chamber (3:00 P.M.)
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 68-69-9~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1042 - PUBLIC HEARING:
(Clarification of Access Across 1-Foot Holding Strip): In accordance with legal
notice duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin, public hearing was held on
clarification of access across a 1-foot holding strip separating a public alley
and the property at 2630 West Lincoln Avenue (Casa Valencia Motel) from the
properties to the east, pursuant to the resolutions approving Reclassification
No. 68-69-9 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1042.
75-846
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Reports from the Planning Department and City Engineer were submitted, dated
August 26 and August 15, 1975 respectively. There were no verbal comments to add
to these reports but Miss Santalahti submitted a map of subject area showing the
alley and properties adjacent to it.
Mayor Thom opened the public hearing and offered Mrs. Pagel an opportunity
to speak.
Mrs. Betty Pagel, 2185 West Hiawatha, Anaheim 92804, stated that her position
in the matter is that at the time of the September 17, 1968 public hearing at which '-~
she represented Mr. Notaro's interest relating to his property located adjacent and
to the east of the alley, 2622 W. Lincoln, she agreed to withdraw objections to the
project proposed and, in particular, to permit the revised plans be used, with the rear
of the three-story building facing Mr. Notaro's property. In return for withdrawal
of their objections, it was agreed at that time that Mr. Notaro would be able to
take access to that alley, upon development of his property, without reimbursement
for same. Now, upon preliminary preparations for development, Mr. Notaro has been
informed by the City Building and Planning Departments that he must first purchase
access rights across the 1-foot holding strip, at $21.86 per square foot. She
advised that she was not informed that development could take'place without payment
for the 1-foot holding strip if no access is taken to the alley.
Mrs. Pagel further contended that the condition requiring payment for the
1-foot holding strip was established at the City Council meeting of October 22,
1968, when Mr. Ingram requested a clarification on behalf of his client, and
not at a public hearing. She voiced the opinion that the City Council should
not have taken such an action subsequent to the public hearing without
conducting another public hearing with notice to all parties involved. She
advised that she believes her statements are corroborated by the minutes of the
September 17, 1968 public hearing which contain no reference to reimbursement
to be made from the properties along Lincoln Avenue, although they do refer to
those on Magnolia Avenue.
Mrs. Pagel advised that she has not been able to determine whether any of
the properties fronting on Magnolia, which are now developed~ have paid for
access to the alley, and questioned whether the City staff could inform her on
this matter.
Mr. Dale L. Ingram, P. O. Box 5222, E1 Monte, California, representing
Mayer Construction Company and Mr. Robert L. Mayer, advised that Mr. Mayer is
the owner of the 1-foot holding strip which was granted pursuant to his irrevo-
cable offer of dedication of a 20-foot wide alley in connection with rezoning
of property contained within Reclassification No. 68~69-9.
Mr. Ingram reported that the reason he returned to the City Council for
clarification of a condition in October of 1968 was to determine if he had
understood the working of the 1-foot holding strip and how Mr. MAyer was to be
reimbursed for lending the money to construct the alley complex. He ascertained
at this October meeting that this was a process which had been used by the City
before and it was legal.
Mr. Ingram reported that one parcel of property has obtained access rights
to the alley since the establishment of the 1-foot holding strip, but that
property inadvertently, because of error on the part of Mr. Mayer, did not pay
for this access. He explained that this property, owned at the time by Hamilton
Investments, was processing some development applications and needed access for
drainage. Because the procedure to collect funds for the 1-foot holding strip
was not familiar to the Mayer Construction Company, Mr. Mayer signed the document
releasing access rights to Hamilton Investments without fully reading same. Once Mr. ---
Mayer became aware of the mistake it was determined that this would not occur
in connection with any future property that wished to take access to the alley.
Mr. Ingram stated that Mr. Mayer was to be reimbursed for 50% of the cost
of the alley. The price was based on the total cost of the land and improvements.
He read the costs paid by Mr. Mayer for land and various improvements, which
totaled $26,258.77, 50% of which comes to $13,129.35 distributed over 600 lineal
feet of alley, therefore the cost per lineal foot for access across the 1-foot
holding strip is $21.869. He remarked that these improvements were constructed
in 1969 and certainly have added value to the adjacent properties since that
time, and that the adjacent property owners are able to acquire access rights
75-847
City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1975~ .1:30 P.M.
at 1969 prices. He concluded that Mr. b~yer had placed his faith in the integrity
of the City and now asks that the City Council live up to the commitment which
was made.
Mr. Ingram also noted that the alley complex, consisting of a north/south
and an east/west alley which ultimately terminates at Stinson Street, was con-
structed for fire circulation and drainage purposes as well as street access.
Discussion centered upon the question raised by Mrs. Pagel, as to whether
or not any of the other four properties, excluding Mr. Notaro's, adjacent to the
north/south alley are taking access to same, and if so, whether or not they paid
for access across the 1-foot holding strip.
Miss Santalahti reported that the condition requiring the acquisition of
the 1-foot holding strip prior to issuance of a building permit was imposed on
two parcels pursuant to resolutions granting Reclassification Nos. 68-69-22 and
68-69-63, shown as Ashton Investments on the map. Both of these'properties front
on Magnolia Avenue with rear lot lines abutting the north/south alley in question.
There is nothing to indicate that these parcels paid for access to the alley, but
it was noted that the development of same is such that the rear carport walls
abut the east property line and alley and consequently they do not take street
access from that alley but have provided for this elsewhere.
Miss Santaiahti further reported that the Dunn parcel which fronts on
Magnolia Avenue has never applied for zone change and, therefore.~ there has been
no opportunity to impose the condition. The fourth parcel, belonging to Cascadian
Investment Company was issued a building permit in 1962 which preceded the estab-
lishment of the 1-foot holding strip and construction of the alley itself.
Mrs. Pagel advised that she represented the opposition at the original
hearing which was significant, since most of the adjoining property owners were
opposed to the motel project which was proposed on the basis that they feared
it would eventually constitute substandard apartment units. She noted that the
situation as presented at that time was worse for Mr. Notaro's property than
any of the others, because of the fact that he had 200 feet abutting the alley
and because he would have to contend with the rear of the proposed building
facing his property according to the revised plan. She observed that the access
situation is vital to the development possibilities of Mr. Notaro's property
and must be resolved. She stated that it would require 12 feet of access for
trash pickup through the alley and 20 feet to provide one driveway, and it does
not state anywhere in the documents she has reviewed how much of the holding
strip Mr. Notaro is required to purchase. The question is important in that
the entire 200 feet would amount to about $4,000 which is a substantial sum of
money. She reiterated that the agreement was made at the September 17, 1968
public hearing and that Mr. Mayer made this commitment,
Mr. Ingram stated that no commitment was made at that time to give anyone
free access to the alley.
Mr. Watts responded in answer to Mrs. Pagel, that the requirement for
acquisition of the 1-foot holding strip would refer to the entire lineal
footage of her client's property which abuts the alley. He also explained
that pursuant to the terms of the irrevocable offer of dedication, the alley-
way is the property of the City except for the 1-foot holding strip. That
1-foot strip would not be subject to dedication until such time as Mr. Mayer
has been paid or has certified to the City that he has been satisfied.
In response to Councilman Seymour's question as to whether or not the City
has any evidence that the properties fronting on Magnolia and abutting the north/
south alley had clearance from Mr. Mayer that he had received payment for the
1-foot holding strip, Mr. Maddox was dispatched to review the Engineering Depart-
ment files for same. After a brief period of time he reported that he was unable
to locate any evidence of administrative clearance for these properties, and in
particular for the Hamilton Investment property.
Mr. Pagel reiterated that while mention was made in the minutes of the
September 17, 1968 public hearing that the properties along Magnolia would
pay for reimbursement of the alley, no mention was made of the properties on
Lincoln Avenue. She read a portion of the minutes aloud from page 68-549
indicating that "the alley circulation, provided in the revised plans, was
the most agreeable plan to everyone involved, as it did not require reimburse-
ment for dedication or construction of the alley.:'
It T - I I! I I - IIII II
75-848
C.i.t~. Hall~ .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Ingram explained that as he recalls this portion of the minutes re~erred
to the east/west alley out to Stinson Street, for which it was necessary that
Mr. Mayer purchase land from properties fronting on Lincoln Avenue, and there
was no reimbursement requirement made along that stretch of alley, only the 600
foot strip for the north/south alleyway.
Council Members Seymour and Sneegas reviewed copies of the minutes of
September 17, 1968.
Mr. Thompson reported that there has been a Resolution of Intent to re-
zone Mr. Notaro's property to the CL Zone, and that this condition to acquire
the 1-foot holding strip was imposed at that time, pursuant to Resolution No.
73R-181.
Mrs. Pagel explained that that particular reclassification was not pertinent
to this discussion, in that the Applicant intends to construct an office building.
She advised that because of her client's language problem he was not aware of the
conditions imposed at the time of that rezoning, when he was represented by someone
other than herself. He intends now to rezone the property for multiple-family use
and to construct apartments. It was in preparation of this zoning action that she
came upon the necessity for clarification of the 1-foot holding strip requirement.
Mrs. Pagel insisted that no mention was made at the original public hearing
as she recalls about reimbursement for a 1-foot holding strip and further questioned
Mr. Ingram's motive, if this holding strip were established at the public hearing
on September 17, 1968, then why was it necessary for him to return to the Council
on October 22~ 1968.
Mr. Ingram stated that the City staff was aware of the arrangement and had
prepared the documents and the irrevocable offer of dedication was recorded in
1969 with the provision with the 1-foot holding strip.
Mayor Thom asked if anyone else wished to address the Council, there being
no response he declared the hearing closed.
In reply to Councilman Pebley's request for a legal opinion on the situation,
Mr. Watts counseled that irrespective of what happened in 1968 or 1969~ the fact
that the Council is now presented with, in his opinion, is that Mr. Mayer owns a
1-foot strip of land between Mr Notaro's property and the public alley. To the
extent that anyone wishes to use that alley, they will have to pay him for it,
since the irrevocable offer is conditioned upon one premise, which is the payment
of the lineal footage price times the number of lineal feet of any adjoining
property to that strip. If Mr. Notaro decides not to utilize this alley, and
his property is developable without using that access, then he does not have to
pay Mr. Mayer for use of it.
In reply to Councilman Seymour's query as to the City's legal position if
a City employee issued a building permit in error or intentionally without
receiving the proper release from Mr. Mayer, Mr. Watts explained that where there
is a discretionary action on the part of an official and he responsibly exercises
his discretion, generally there is no liability.
Councilman Sneegas stated that, in his opinion, regardless of what happens
in the case of the Hamilton Investment property, the City has no legal right to
grant accegg acrogs private property.
Councilman Seymour remarked that from reviewing the minutes of the public
hearing in September 1968, these could be interpreted either way, and the City
Council, in clear conscience at a subsequent meeting made a clarification of
the condition not thinking of the future ramifications. He questioned the City's
legal responsibility, having entered into an agreement which affects other proper-
ties without benefit of public hearing. Councilman Seymour was of the opinion that
if the City Council entered into an agreement in 1968 which they have breached,
they would be liable for damages, however, he is not convinced this is the fact.
Councilman Sneegas noted that the clarification of a condition following
the public hearing is not unusual; that frequently staff returns to Council for
clarification because of different implications at the public hearing. He
stated that the current Council has, on occasions, clarified conditions subse-
quent to public hearings too.
75-849
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that at the October meeting in question, the
motion clarifying the condition was seconded by a Council Member who was not even
present at the September 17, 1968 meeting.
Councilman Seymour explained that the way he interprets the events of the
original public hearing on Reclassification No. 68-69-9 is that the landowners
who did not wish to develop had no reason to contribute towards the cost of the
alley, feeling that the one developer was creating his own problem and therefore
he should pay for it. He referred Council Members to page 2, paragraph 4 of the
staff report dated August 26, 1975 which he felt effectively describes what
happened in October 1968, and in reading the minutes of the September meeting,
the idea is conveyed, although it is not formally stated, that the Applicant was
willing to put in the alley at his own cost in order to secure approval for the
project.
Councilman Seymour questioned what authority the City Council had to
change conditions imposed at a public hearing subsequent to the hearing and not
at a noticed public hearing.
Mr. Watts replied that the general practice followed is, if the changes
are not substantial or material, they can be accomplished in this manner.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour stated that it would be his interpretation of the
minutes of September 17, 1968 on Reclassification No. 68-69-9 that the developer
would improve the alley at his own cost, and thereupon moved that the City CounCil
uphold the original intent of the former City Council at their public hearing of
September 17, 1968 which states that the developer would improve the alley in
question at his own cost. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. To this motion
Council Members Pebley and Sneegas voted '~no~'. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Thom advised Mrs. Pagel that Mr. Notaro had access to the alley.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1143 (READVERTISED) - PUBLIC ~ARING: Application by
Fred Sotomayer for the following code waivers to expand an existing pre-school
on RS-7200 zoned property located on the east side of East Street, south of
La Palma Avenue, was submitted together with application for exemption status
from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report: a, minimum
side yard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-169, reported
that the Director of Development Services has determined that the proposed
activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of
Anaheim Guidelines for requirements for an E.I.R. and is therefore categorically
exempt and further granted said conditional use permit as readvertised for a
maximum of 64 children subject to the following conditions:
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works; and the 40-foot
buffer area on the easterly portion of the subject property, which is separated
by an existing chainlink fence from the pre-school area, shall not be utilized
for the storage of trash, broken glass, or other undesirable material, and said
area shall be maintained, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
2. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
No. 1; provided, however, that for purposes of buffering, a solid masonry
wall shall be constructed along the east property line, said wall to be six
(6) feet above the highest grade level as stipulated to by the petitioner, and
that minimum five (5)-gallon size, Arizona cypress trees, on two (2)-foot centers,
shall be planted along the east property line, and a landscaping plan for same
shall be submitted to the Development Services Department for approval, as
stipulated to by the petitioner.
4. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
5. That this conditional use permit is granted for a maximum of sixty-
four (64) children.
IIIII . II I I
75-850
Ci. ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 197.5~ 1:30 P.M.
Review of action taken by the City Planning Commission was requested by
Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood at the City Council Meeting of August 26, 1975 and
public hearing scheduled this date.
Submitted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1143 (Readvertised)
was correspondence from surrounding residents, as follows, indicating no objection
to the Applicant's plans for expansion: John G. Bultena, 1205 East La Palma:
Wayne D. and Josephine Rey, 1224 East La Palma~ Ida L. Pacho, 752 North East
Street~ Don R. and Valerie D. Priest, 1216 East La Palma; Mr. and Mrs. Arthur M.
Babajan; James W. Lucey, 1217 East La Palma; and Burt F. and Marian V. Ebert,
1510 East Cedar Street.
Mayor Thom left the Council Chamber at 4:05 P.M. and Mayor Pro Tem Seymour
assumed chairmanship of the meeting.
Miss Santalahti briefly reviewed the staff report submitted~ noting that
this is the second request for expansion since the conditional use permit was
originally approved in 1967. The Applicant now proposes to enlarge an existing
2,460 square foot building to 2,900 square feet and to increase enrollment at
the school from 56 to 64 children, with no increase in staff members.
Miss Santalahti pointed out that in their approval of this conditional use
permit as readvertised, the City Planning Commission imposed a condition that a
masonry wall 6 feet above highest grade level along the east property line be
constructed to provide a visual buffer between the two properties, and further
that minimum five-gallon size Arizona cypress trees on two-foot centers be planted
along the east property lines to provide buffering from the adjacent property.
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour asked if the Applicants were present and satisfied
with the recommendations of the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Fred Sotomayor, 744 North East Street, indicated he was satisfied and
offered to answer any questions.
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour if anyone wished to address the Council either in
favor or opposition to the conditional use permit as readvertised.
Mr. D. Cuadros, 1505 East Broadway, Anaheim, owner of the property located
at 733 North East Street, inquired whether the subject property would be considered
commercial as a result of current proceedings. The rights granted Mr. Sotomayer's
property pursuant to the conditional use permit under discussion were explained
for Mr. Cuadros. Mr. Cuadros indicated that he had no objections to the proposed
expansion.
Mayor Thom returned to Council Chamber (4;20 P.M.).
Ms. Denise Szot, 727 Juniper Place, Anaheim, advised that she was directly
behind the nursery school which is operated on Hr. Sotomayer's property. She
stated that her family is opposed to the expansion of the school and to the
addition of any more children because the Applicant has not yet completed the
conditions originally set forth for the use as a nursery school. She explained
that the City Planning Commission, in their original approval of this conditional
use permit imposed a condition that the six-foot wall be constructed on the east
property line to create a bu£fer between her property and the school~ but al-
though there is a wall, she contended that this is not six feet for its entire
length since it does not impair the view from her house into the nursery school
yard. She further objected to the expansion of the school because the operation
of same invades their privacy, and because of the noise created by the children.
Ms. Szot further advised that there is a barn-like structure located to
the rear of the Sotomayer property which is used for trash storage. This,
according to discussions at the Planning Commission level, was supposed to have
been cleaned up. She presented photographs of the nursery school taken from
her property which were reviewed by Council and returned. She advised that
their property line abuts the school along its entire length.
In response to Councilman Seymour, Miss Santalahti advised that the fence
required to be constructed along the east property line of the nursery school
was to be six feet from the highest grade level. She added that the condition
requiring the wall is the same as originally imposed in 1967; that the City
Planning Commission, because of concern for visual buffering from the adjacent
75-851
City Ha~l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1975~ 1:.3o .P.M.
residential property to the east, at this time also required the dense landscaping
with Arizona cypress trees. Miss Santalahtl reported that the City Planning
Commission felt the trees were necessary in addition to the wall because of
the play area containing swings, climbing apparatus, etc.
In rebuttal, Mr. Sotomayor stated that he is agreeable to the conditions
imposed by the City Planning Commission with regard to the wall and trees.
He pointed out that he maintains a buffer zone of 75 by 90 feet, whereas
only 40 feet is required. This is fenced and the children are not permitted to
use it. He advised that the school has been in operation for 8 years and that
they have never had any problems; that they have been, and intend to remain, on
good terms with their neighbors. He referred to the letters submitted in
support of his petition.
Mayor Thom left the Council Chamber (4:40 P.M.).
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour explained to Mr. Sotomayer that he had not sensed any
rejection of his use of the property as a nursery school, but that apparently
the only problem seems to be to protect the privacy of the property adjacent and
to the rear. The conditions regarding the six-foot masonry wall and landscaping
were reviewed again and Mr. Sotomayor stated that he understood and was willing
to comply with these.
Mrs. Sotomayer, Director of the Nursery School, explained that the children
are well supervised, and that the play equipment in the rear yard is rotated to
protect the grass.
Discussion centered on the possibility of placing a light-weight plastic
or wood attachment to the top of the existing six-foot block wall fence to make
up for the difference in grade levels between the two properties without causing
the applicant to tear down and construct a new masonry wall~ noting that to add
masonry blocks to the existing wall would be in violation of the Building Code.
Ms. Szot voiced concern that such addition to the existing wall be attractive in
appearance, since her family should not suffer the consequences of the Applicant's
mistake in not taking into account the grade-level differentiation when constructing
the masonry wall; that her family would prefer a solid block wall.
Mayor Thom returned to Council Chamber (4:45 P.M.).
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour asked Mr. Sotomayer if he would stipulate to the
adding of red wood or other light-weight material to the top of the existing
wall to bring said wall to the required 6 feet above the highest grade level.
Mr. Sotomayer replied affirmatively and indicated he. would be willing to
do whatever is feasible as required by the City,
It was noted that the Applicant has one year in which to comply with these
conditions or that they must be completed prior to commencement of the activity
i.e., the expansion of the school.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council either in favor
or opposition, and there being no response~he declared the hearing closed.
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION E.I.R.: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Council-
man Pebley, the City Council ratified the determination of the Director of Develop-
ment Services that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01~
Class 1, o£ the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental
impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file
an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-489: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-489 for
adoption approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1143 as readvertised, subject to
the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission, and the stipulation by
the Applicant relative to the height of the wall along the easterly property line.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 1143 (READVERTISED).
75-852
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1~75~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom.
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-489 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber (4:50 P.M.).
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-490 - AGREEMENT ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER AMERICAN RED CROSS - NATURAL
DISASTERS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 75R-490 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER OF THE ~ERICAN RED CROSS AND THE CITY
PERTAINING TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEmeNT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom.
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
'ORARILY ABSENT' COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-490 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-491 - AGREEMENT - MAGNOLIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT: (Public
Service Employment Program, Title II, Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973.)
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 75R-491 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND
THE MAGNOLIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF A
PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom.
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
?ORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-491 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-492 - AGREEMENT - ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL:
(Public Service Employment Program Title II, Comprehensive Employment Training Act
of 1973 - $9,639.00). Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 75R-492 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEI~ APPROVING AMD
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND
THE ORANGE COUNTY coMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, INC. RELATING TO THE
OPERATION OF A PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom.
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-492 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Seymour returned to Council Chamber (4:55 P.M.).
DISAPPROVAL OF REQUEST TO RECLASSIFY PART-TIME POSITIONS TO FULL TIME: (Parks,
Recreation and the Arts Department). Mr. Lloyd Trapp advised that at the time
of preparation of the 1975-76 Budget the Recreation Division had requested two
additional full time personnel, a Staff Artist and Staff Photographer-Writer.
75-85~
City Hall~ Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 19.75~ 1:30 P.M.
He advised that these two positions have been carried for three and two years
respectively in the Department by budgeting as parttime positions at 40 hours per
week year round, and during the 1975-76 budget session it was agreed to continue
budgeting in that manner for one additional year. However, because of public
employee retirement system (PERS) rules and regulations, effective July 1, 1975,
there is a prohibition against any part-time employee working more than 1~000 hours
in a calender year. This would have the effect of automatically reducing both
employees to 1,000 hours each during the 1975-76 calender year. Since these
individuals have two and three years of training and on-the-job experience, the
Recreation Division would like to continue these positions on a full-time basis
by utilizing the current job classification of Recreation Assistant for same. The
Personnel Department has agreed with utilizing this job classification. There are
sufficient funds within the Recreation Division budget to cover the dollar amount
of salaries for these positions, however, the difference would be the cost of the
fringe benefit program for these individuals as full-time employees.
Mayor Thom asked if the City Manager's Office recommends this reclassification
and was advised by Mr. Murdoch that they are not recommending this personnel action
be taken in particular, inasmuch as there is a substantial amount of publicity given
to the recreation programs and these two positions would be primarily involved in
this promotional effort. Therefore, the decision as to whether or not to continue
the positions on a full time basis would require that the Council determine whether
or not they wished to continue that function at the present level or at a reduced
level. He indicated that he had no objection to the method of reclassification
proposed. He advised that retaining the individuals on a part-time basis~ with the
1,000 hours per year limitation, would constitute about a 50% reduction from the
previous level.
Councilman Seymour indicated that he has a problem with the request to
reclassify these positions inasmuch as the Arthur Young & Company has specifically
recommended the use of numerous part-time positions to accomplish the work in Parks,
Recreation and the Arts Department.
Mr. Trapp advised that they have employed the concept of utilizing part-time
personnel in the park maintenance area. He noted that in the Recreation Division,
which has over 800 employees, there are only 11 full time people. They feel that
they are implementing the Arthur Young & Company recommendation but also feel very
strongly in the case of these two positions that they have invested considerable
resources during the time it has taken for these individuals to acquire experience
and they would like to continue these positions.
Mayor Thom stated that while he understood the position of the Department,
he could not vote in favor of the requested personnel'action because of the
Council's present policy which has been not to fill vacant positions and to
avoid creating new positions if at all possible.
Councilman Thom moved that the request to reclassify two Recreation Division
parttime staff positions to full time be denied. Councilman Seymour seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REPORT - 1975-76 BUDGET STATUS: Mr Ringer summarized the status of the 1975-76
Budget to date, with particular emphasis on the reserve for Contingency Fund
created by the Council at the time of budget adoption. He reviewed the following
figures as shown in his memorandum dated September 10, 1975 (on file in the office
of the City Clerk);
Savings - Salary negotiations
Anticipated savings - salaries
Capital expenses held
Unappropriated balance, June 30, 1975,
General Fund
Council Contingency
Due from Utilities
Reserve for Contingencies, August 31, 1975,
$ 200,000.00
500,000.00
1,014,904.00
2,575,447.00
270,000.00
$4,560.351.00
1,896~780.00
$2,663,571.00
Mr. Ringer pointed out that the unappropriated balance figure of $2,575,447.00
is projected with the assumption that there will be a Southern California Edison
rate increase in January 1976 and that the City will adjust its retail rates in
accordance with the policy established, to remain 5% below the Edison rate.
75-854
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 197~.~ 1:30 P.M.
The total contingency figure is $4,560,351.00 but this amount includes
$1,896,780.00 to be transferred from the Utilities which cannot, at this point,
be counted upon. Therefore, there is a firm figure in the reserve for Contingency
Fund of $2,663,571.00.
Councilman Seymour remarked that the Finance Director's original projection
on property taxes was low, and questioned why the difference between the low
projection and actual tax amount to be received is not shown in this Contingency
Fund.
Mr. Ringer replied that they do anticipate that approximately $569,000 will
be collected in property taxes over the amount shown in the 1975-76 Budget, which
is not shown here, and also not included in this report is the anticipated $131,000
which the City should receive as a result of the recently authorized increase in
water connection charges. He explained that these were not included in the reserve
contingency fund at this time pending the resolution of the electrical revenue
problem.
Councilman Seymour stated that if these two figures ($569,000 and $131,000)
are added to the reserve contingency figure given by Mr. Ringer of $2,663,571.00,
a more accurate picture of the reserve account is $3,363,000.00.
1975-76 SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATIONS: The following list of supplementary appropria-
tions for the 1975-76 Budget was submitted and recommended for approval by the City
Manager:
residential and commercial sanitation contract charges
comprehensive liability insurance
paramedics van and equipment
park land acquisition - two sites
Recreation Division capital equipment
Social Services Center operations
electronic optical scanning system
computer core storage
grant accountant
Housing Authority - HUD allowable budgetary
requirement differentiation
$ 267,000
198,760
30,150
114,000
7,850
3,992
35,926
18,000
20,000
19,416
$714,094
fir. Ringer discussed each item with Council, pointing out that the money is
necessary now for the paramedics van and equipment because of the lead time in-
volved and because one of the requirements of the Hospital Paramedic Committee is
t}at the City own the equipment; that the $114,000 for park land acquisition is
for purchase of park property from park in lieu fees and will constitute this
year's payment; the capital equipment for the Recreation Division-was originally
budgeted in the Parks Division Budget and identified as recreation equipment, but
inadvertently left out of the Recreation Division Budget; the Social Services
appropriation is necessary to fund the Center until the Grant Funds are released,
and should carry the Center to October 1, 1975; the figure of $20,000 shown for
the Grant ;~countant is not actually an appropriation from the General Fund,
Federal Grant money can be utilized with one-half of the expense charges to the
Community Development Act Fund, one-quarter to Geo-Coding and one-quarter to
indirect cost-overhead funds; the final item, $19,416 is necessary to cover the
cost of the Housing Authority until clearance is received to use redevelopment
tax increment funds for this purpose.
Discussion ensued regarding the funding of the Social Services Center
during which Mr. Murdoch explained that this is proposed to be financed from the
Housing and Community Development Grant, and it was at first indicated that it
would be a simple matter to complete the application for this operation, however,
at a matter of actual fact, the administration of the Grant has established a
series of very lengthy and time-consuming requirements, which have already held
up the filing of the application for a one-year period. He explained that the
costs borne by the City for the Center are not reimbursable once Grant funds
are received. He remarked, however, that there are portions of the costs of
the Social Services Center which are funded through CETA such as one-half of the
rental of the building, and some of the salaries excluding two, the Community
Relations Representative and Center Director, although even a portion of these
salaries will be picked up from the Housing and Community Development Grant once
funds are released.
75-855
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September ~16~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
In reply to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Murdoch advised that the only way t0
postpone these expenses would be to discontinue operation of the Social Services
Center.
Councilman Seymour indicated that if it is intended to request Council action
this date to attach the costs for the Housing Authority ($19,416) to the General
Fund, he would not be in favor of that since it has been promised that this would
not have to be borne by the General Fund.
Mr. Ringer advised that holding action on that item would not be detrimental,
that there are sufficient funds to carry the present level of operation for llq
months, and approval for use of tax increment funds for this purpose is anticipated
prior to that time.
In response to Councilman Seymour's query regarding the number of grants
over last year which would justify the accountant, Mr. Ringer reported that the
largest single requirement is for the Community Development Act Fund, which re-
quires detailed accounting. In addition to CETA and PEP accounts, there is also
a need to provide accounting assistance to the Grants Coordinator and Manpower
Planner. Mr. Ringer advised that this accountant would report directly to him.
Councilman Seymour moved that the Supplementary Appropriations to the 1975-76
Budget be approved as recommended by the City Manager, with the exception of the
$19,416 appropriation for the Housing Authority, for a total budget supplement of
$675,678.00; and further, that the expenditure of $20,000 in Grant Funds for em-
ployment of a Grant Accountant be approved. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
SAGE PARK DAMAGES - COURT ACTION: The City Attorney reported that in connection
with the incident which occurred during the first part of 1975 at Sage Park
when an individual was apprehended after driving a vehicle in the Park and
charged with malicious mischief, the Court has awarded the City the cost of
actual damages as well as $1,000 in punitive damages. He reported that the
City Attorney's Office intends to pursue such acts of malicious mischief in this
manner in the future.
ANAHEIM FEEDER/CONNECTOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM: Memorandum from the Planning
Department dated September 16, 1975, presenting a proposal to develop alternative
concepts for an Anaheim Feeder/Connector Transportation System was submitted.
(Complete memorandum on file in the Office of the City Clerk).
Mr. Don McDaniel briefly reviewed the contents of the memorandum and ad-
vised that the firm which has submitted a proposal to' develop alternative con-
cepts for this system, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas, has displayed
in its proposal an awareness of the real and important issUes to be dealt with
in planning a feeder/connector system specifically for the City of Anaheim.
They are anxious to participate in transportation planning efforts in the com-
munity. The proposal as submitted is estimated to cost between forty-eight and
fifty-three thousand dollars.
Mr. McDaniel advised that this proposal has been reviewed and discussed
by the Intermode Committee and their recommendation indicated they believe this
is the appropriate time to consider a proposal to study a feeder/connector transit
system and the proposal submitted appears to take an appropriate approach. They
feel, however, that the City staff should establish some criteria to be reviewed
by them, which will then be used in a "request for proposals'~ to be sent to
other firms qualified in the area of transportation planning. Staff would then
review such submitted proposals and recommend to the City Council on the selection
of a consultant. Basically, they would like, because of the significance of the
study, to review and compare more than one proposal.
Mr. McDaniel reported that the staff recommendation is that the City Council:
1. Determine that a feasibility study of a feeder/connector transportation
system is necessary at this time.
2. Direct staff to prepare a "request for proposals" (reviewed by the
Intermode Committee) to be sent to consultants qualified in the area of trans-
portation planning.
3. Request the Community Redevelopment Commission to consider funding the
study utilizing Redevelopment Funds for 75% of the cost and City General Funds for
the remaining 25% of the cost.
75-856
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~. 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. McDaniel reported that Mr. Paul Gilbert of Parsons~ Brinckerhoff~ Quade
and Douglas was present in the Council Chamber if any Council Members had questions.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City
Council approved and authorized the implementation of the proposal to develop
alternative concepts for an Anaheim Feeder/Connector Transportation System as
submitted and recommended by the Planning Department in memorandum dated
September 16, 1975. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-493 - BALL ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT: (AHFP NO. 583 - Request for
increased allocation) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 74R-493 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE COUNTY
OF ORANGE TO INCREASE THE ALLOCATION WITHIN THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING
PROGRAM FOR THE BALL ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT, A.H.F.P. NO. 583. ($19,067.40)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-493 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-494 - AMENDING DRAINAGE FEES - PERALTA HILLS AND UPSTREAM AREAS:
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-494 for adoption amending Resolution
No. 75R-474 and establishing a drainage fee for the Peralta Hills Area at $1,450.00
per acre and all other areas within Districts 36 and 37 at $3,625.00 per acre.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.
75R-474 ESTABLISHING THE DRAINAGE FEES IN PERALTA HILLS AND UPSTREAM AREAS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom.
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-494 duly passed and adopted.
THE INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY - APPROPRIATION: Mr. Gordon Hoyt
submitted a memorandum dated September 5, 1975 together with pertinent information
relative to the Intermountain Power Project feasibility study and recommending
that $331,545.00 be appropriated from Electric Revenue Bond funds to cover
estimated costs of the project feasibility study through June 30, 1976. (Complete
memorandum and data on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council
authorized appropriation of $331,545.00 from Electric Revenue Bond funds to cover
the estimated cost of the Intermountain Power Project feasibility study through
June 30, 1976, as recommended by the Utilities Director. Councilman Thom voted "no".
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber (5:40 P.M.).
WORK ORDER NO. 760-A: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
the award of contract Work Order No. 760-A (Euclid Avenue storm drain improvement)
previously continued from the meeting of September 2, 1975 was further continued to
the meeting of September 23, 1975 as recommended by the City Engineer. Councilman
Seymour temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
IMPERIAL HIGHWAY OVERHEAD POLES - PROTEST RANCHO YORBA HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION: (Con-
tinued from the meetings of July 22, July 29, August 5, August 19 and September 2,
1975) The setting of overhead utility poles along Imperial Highway between Santa
Ana Canyon Road and Nohl Ranch Road was delayed at the Council Meeting of July 15,
1975 in order to allow the Rancho Yorba Home Owners Association an opportunity to
present their opposition and suggest alternatives to the situation.
Councilman Seymour returned to the Council~Chamber (5:43 P.M.)
75-857
~ity H~.ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 197.5~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz Street, Anaheim, was recognized by the Mayor
and presented a letter dated September 16, 1975 from the Santa Ana Canyon Improve-
ment Association, Inc., indicating they believe every effort should be made to up-
grade and improve the intersection of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road
as it is the main intersection in the canyon area. Mrs. Dinndorf stated that she
is aware of the added costs for undergrounding of these electrical lines but still
felt every consideration should be given to the undergrounding at this particular
intersection because it is the main entrance to the hill and canyon area. She
noted that the County considers Santa Ana Canyon Road a scenic highway and their
recommendation is whenever a utility must be relocated or may be converted in
connection with a street'widening or other public improvement project that it be
undergrounded.
In reply to Councilman Seymour, Mrs. Dinndorf noted that she had no new
alternatives for funding the undergrounding of these lines but suggested the
City pursue the idea presented by Dr. Armstrong of the Rancho Yorba Home Owners
Association that an assessment district be formed.
Considerable discussion between the Council Members and Mr. Hoyt centered
upon the possibility of forming assessment districts for undergrounding of
utilities, not only at this particular intersection but throughout the hill and
canyon area, and the costs thereof. Mr. Hoyt related that the acreage costs for
such a policy can only be calculated in today's dollars which most probably would
not be accurate by the time the procedure is complete to form and approve the
districts. It was also noted that already-developed areas have not included the
acreage cost requirement for undergrounding in the cost package of their properties
whereas the incoming developers could add this consideration into their package.
Mr. Watts pointed out that some of the details which would have to be worked out
at hearings regarding an assessment district for this purpose would be who is to
put up the front money, the City or the property owners, and the number of years
which would be permitted for repayment.
Councilwoman Kaywood reviewed the cost breakdown for undergrounding the Poles
on Imperial Highway, south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, as presented in the memorandum
dated September 12, 1975 from the Electrical Superintendent and clarified that she
had only one conversation with a member of the Orange Unified School District Board
regarding their participation in this undergrounding which would amount to $12,000.
She pointed out that she had recommended this participation in the undergrounding
as a relatively inexpensive way for the School District to gain some good will from
voters in their districts.
Councilman Sneegas left the Council meeting (5:58 P.M.).
During the discussion Councilman Seymour asked Mrs. Dinndorf if she would
poll her membership in the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, Inc., to
determine whether they would be willing to join an assessment district to under-
ground as a policy throughout the canyon area and also whether they have any
alternatives to offer regarding the financing of such a program.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that she is and has been extremely concerned
over this one particular intersection and asked how extreme the emergency is that
these overhead poles be set.
Mr. Hoyt advised that the Electrical Superintendent has received voltage
complaints today and in further answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, stated that if
authorized today to erect overhead poles, these could be operational in one week.
For undergrounding equipment, it would take nine months to receive the order.
Mr. Hoyt advised that there has been an alternate overhead route suggested
which would run through the proposed City park site west of the shopping center
area. However, this would not eliminate the crossing of Santa Ana Canyon Road
and would cost $20,000 to construct as opposed to $6,500 to complete the utility
line as proposed currently.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood commented that she
had stalled activity on the setting of the overhead poles since July 22, 1975
in the hope that some method of funding or other alternative could be found.
She stated that at this time, because of the extremely warm weather and voltage
complaints and because of the fact that although everyone wants underground
utilities for the hill and canyon area, but no one is willing to pay for these,
she would have to very reluctantly vote in favor of proceeding with the overhead
utility poles. However, she suggested that the Council seriously consider an
undergrounding policy for the future to eliminate this problem.
IlI I ~1 I I I ~1 ·
75-858
Cit% Hall~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1975, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hoyt stated that he would prepare such a policy for submission and dis-
cussion with the City Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved that the Electrical Division proceed
with the setting of temporary overhead utility poles to complete the 12kV feeder
circuit extension on Imperial Highway, south of SantaAnaCanyonRoad. Councilman Thom
seconded the motion. Councilman Sneegas absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom,
the following actions were authorized in accordance with reports and recommenda-
tions furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda.
1. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: the following claims were denied and referred to the
insurance carrier.
a. Claim submitted by Cbinook Mobilodge~ Inc,~ for loss of office equipment
purportedly confiscated from their ex-employee by Anaheim Police Department~ on or
about August 5, 1975.
b. Claim submitted by Terry Lee Tatum for injuries and damages purportedly
sustained as a result of collision with City of Anaheim vehicle on or about
May 19, 1975.
c. Claim submitted by Robert Lynn Coolbaugh for damages and injuries pur-
portedly sustained as a result of actions of the Anaheim Police Department on
or about June 6, 1975.
d. Claim submitted by Ruby Morris for damage to vehicle purportedly sustained
as a result of collision with City vehicle on or about July 15, 1975.
2. ENTERTAINMENT AND DINNER DANCING PLACE PERMIT: The following permits were
granted subject to the recommendations of the Chief of Police.
a. Entertainment Permit for one to four musicians at the Ratskeller, 201
East Ball Road, Monday through Saturday from 6:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M. for a period
of one year (Sam Ventura, Applicant).
b. Dinner Dancing Place Permit for the Royal Archer, 815 South Brookhurst
Street, nightly from 9:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M. (Charles J. Logan, Applicant).
3. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed
a. City of Belmont - Resolution No. 4300 - Expressing support for the
League of California Cities State Revenue Sharing Proposal.
b. Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Commission - Progress Report -
June 2 - August 29, 1975.
c. Project Area Committee (PAC) - Minutes - July 22, 1975,
d. Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes - August 6, August 13,
and August 20, 1975.
e. Anaheim Golf Course Advisory Commission'- Minutes - July 17, 1975.
f. Financial and Operating Report for the Months of July and August, 1975.
Electrical Division - July
Building Division - August
g. Cultural Arts Commission - Minutes - August 18, 1975.
Councilman Sneegas absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NOS. 75R-495 THROUGH 75R-498: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution
Nos. 75R-495 through 75R-498, 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. 75R-495: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Potts, Bruckner Corp.~
Vernon L. Dunham, et ux.; Bernard Perlin; Raymond G. Spehar, et al.; John Lyle
Cannon, et al.).
75-859
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Sep~em~e.r 1.6~. 1975, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-496: 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: APPLICATION OF TRAFFIC STRIPE
PAINT, PAVEMENT MARKINGS, AND DEVICES ON VARIOUS STREETS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NOS. 280-462-922-01 AND 100-425-241. APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS,
PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF: AUTHORIZING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECI-
FICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE
INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened
October 9, 1975, 2:00 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-497 - ACCEPTANCE WORK ORDER NO.. 828~ DOUGLAS ROAD PUMP STATION:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE
COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND
EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER,
AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE
FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: DOUGLAS ROAD PUMP STATION, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 828. (Ecco Contractors, Inc.)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-498 - ACCEPTANCE WORK ORDER NO. 851, RIO VISTA PARK IMPROVEMENT:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE
COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP-
MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND
THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE RIO VISTA PARK IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 851. (Jacco Construction Company).
Roll Call Vote.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 75R-495 through 75R-498, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - PATCH TRUCK BODY: The City Manager reported on informal bids
received for the purchase of one patch truck body and recommended acceptance of the
bid submitted by Nixon-Egli in the amount of $13,409.00, including tax, the low bid
submitted by Paramount Body not meeting specifications.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the bid of Nixon-
Egli was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $13,409.00, including tax.
Councilman Sneegas absent. MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF MATERIAL - SOIL AMENDMENT: The City Manager reported on informal bids
received for 2,050 cubic yards of soil amendment to be used at Twila Reid Park
and recommended acceptance of the low bid submitted by Long Beach Redwood in the
amount of $9,561.20, including tax.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the low bid of
Long Beach Redwood was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $9,561.20,
including tax. Councilman Sneegas absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3463: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3463 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-32 - RM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Pebley and Thom.
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 8463 duly passed and adopted.
75-860
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES- September 16, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3464: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3464 for adoption.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-44(14) - CL-HS(SC).
Roll Call Vote.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom.
NOES' COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3464 duly passed and adopted.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATING COUNCIL: Councilwoman Kaywood announced there would
be a meeting of the Intergovernmental Coordinating Council on September 24, 1975
and the possibility of discontinuing this organization due to the lack of partici-
pation experienced, would be discussed. She advised many members, when comparing
the Intergovernmental Coordinating Council activities with those of the Orange
County Division League of Cities, feel there is a duplication of effort, except
for the participation by the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
Mayor Thom advised that he planned to attend the meeting.
By general consent, the Council indicated its support of the discontinuance
of the Intergovernmental Coordinating Council, with the recommendation that the
Board of Supervisors be allowed to participate in the Orange County Division,
League of California Cities meetings.
ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANS FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOl,: Councilwoman Kaywood
advised that has read in the news media that the Orange Unified School District has
already approved plans for the elementary school to be constructed partially with
City of Anaheim Community Redevelopment funds in the canyon area. She noted that
the Anaheim City Council has not reviewed any plans and that the agreement between
the City and the Orange Unified School District specifically calls for review and
approval of plans by the Anaheim City Council. She requested that the City Manager's
Office follow up on this report.
OPINION - SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS SERVING ON COMMISSIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood inquired
whether the City Attorney would be able to render an opinion on the position taken
by the County Counsel that allowing School Board Members to serve on Commissions
constitutes a con£1ict, prior to the next Parks & Recreation Commission meeting
which will be held Thursday, September 18, 1975.
EXONERATION AND REDUCTION OF BONDS - TRACTS NOS. 7566~ 7567~ 7568 AND 7569: (Continued
from meeting of September 9, 1975) Mr. Fred Armstrong of the Grant Company of
California, reported that he had worked with Mrs. Hall of the Westridge Homeowners
Association and Mr. Thompson, Director of the Planning Department, walking each lot
and slope on which there were concerns regarding the landscaping, irrigation and
drainage to be performed by his firm. Following this investigative survey, they
have agreed on the numbers and types of plant materials to be provided, as well as
their location. They have also reviewed two public improvements which the property
owners had felt were overlooked and agreed on the resolution. He advised that Grant
Company is now in a position to start all landscaping work within 10 calendar days
from the coming weekend. A deadline of November 1, 1975 for completion of this work
has also been discussed. The total cost for both landscaping and public works
improvements is estimated at $16,428.
Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, Anaheim, representing Westridge Homeowners
Association reported that they have worked out a detailed agreement which involves
102 properties in which all trees, shrubs, plants and other necessary improvements
have been delineated. This agreement also takes into account potential future
problems which have not yet been submitted by homeowners. She advised that the
Board of Directors of her Association met last night and are in accord with the
details of this proposed agreement between Westridge Homeowners and the Grant
Company. She reported that she is satisfied with the Grant Company's commitments
and that the cost estimates outlined by Mr. Armstrong are reasonable. She would
recommend that the bonds be reduced to 5% of face value for the two tracts without
specific landscaping bonds, (Nos. 7566 and 7569), and the others left at $37,500
but that bonds for Tract No. 7567 be retained until Spring. They further recom-
ment a 60-day limit be placed on completion of the work.
75-861
City Hall~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September ~6~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Following discussion, and since this item is already scheduled on the Council
agenda for the meeting of September 23, 1975, it was recommended that the agreement
between the Westridge Homeowners and the Grant Company as shown in the minutes of
their meeting of September 15, 1975 be incorporated into a report from the Planning
Department for inclusion in the City records.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City
Council authorized reduction and exoneration of certain bonds for Tract Nos.
7566, 7567, 7568 and 7569 in an amount to reduce the total bonded obligation to
$79,750 for landscaping and irrigation for these 4 tracts, with a completion date
for work to be performed of November 1, 1975, subject to finalization pending
written reports at the meeting of September 23, 1975. Councilman Sneegas absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
RESIGNATION OF REUBEN P. HUGHES FROM THE LIBRARY BOARD: Mayor Thom read aloud a
letter received from Mr. Reuben P. Hughes, Chairman of the Library Board, dated
September 11, 1975, announcing his resignation from the Board, effective immediately.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council
accepted Mr. Hughes' resignation with regrets and expressed sincere appreciation for
his services rendered on the Board. Councilman Sneegas absent. MOTION CARRIED.
TENTATIVE MEETING WITH GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION: By general consent, a tenta-
tive meeting was scheduled with the Golf Course Advisory Commission on Wednesday,
September 24, 1975 at 3:00 P.M. in the Management Control Center, 114 South
Claudina Street, Anaheim.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn to Friday, September 19, 1975,
10:00 A.M. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. Councilman Sneegas absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:20 P.M.
City Clerk
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 19,. 1975~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in Adjourned Regular
Session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts.
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae
INTERIM ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William Griffith
CITY CLERK: Alona M. Hougard
SENIOR PERSONNEL ANALYST: David Hill
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order.
RECESS: On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City
Council recessed to the Management Control Center for Executive Session to
consider personnel matters. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. (10:05 A.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Members of the City Council
being present with the exception of Councilman Pebley. (12:19 P.M.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn to Tuesday, September 23, 1975,
10:00 A.M., at the Management Control Center. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 12:20 P.M.
Signed
City Clerk