1980/04/2280-533
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
FACILITY MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT: John Roche
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
PURCHASING--BUYER: Eve Kir~hman
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Ruth and Seymour
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Terry Hutchison, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the ~
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour
and authorized by the City Council:
"Senior Citizens Month in Anaheim" - May 1980
"Senior Citizens Center Week" May 12-18, 1980
"Parliamentary Law Month in Anaheim" - May 1980
"Loyalty Day in Anaheim" - May 1, 1980
The Senior Citizens Month proclamation was accepted by Estella Nichols and Rose
Wilson; the Senior Citizens Center proclamation by Estella Nichols; Parliamentary
Law proclamation by Erma Van Buren and the Loyalty Day proclamation by Katherine
Davis. '
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously
adopted by the Council commending participants in the "VIP X 2" Program to be
presented at a later date.
MINUTES~ Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings
held December 11, 1979 and January 8 and February 12, 1980. Councilman Ruth sec-
onded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive
the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver 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
in regular order. Councilman Ruth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
80 -5 34
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,755,305.76, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved. ~
123: SCOREBOARD SPONSOR - CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Councilman Bay offered Resolution
No. 80R-171, as recommended in memorandum dated April 15, 1980 from the City Attorney's
office, authorizing a Scoreboard Sponsor Agreement with Continental Airlines, Inc.,
in the amount of $50,000 per year for a 10-year period for advertising rights on
one trivision panel (one-face) on the new scoreboard. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-171: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE cITY OF ANAHEIM
~APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SCOREBOARD SPONSOR AGREEMENT WITH CONTIN-
ENTAL AIRLINES, INC., IN CONNECTION WITH ADVERTISING OF PRODUCTS IN THE ANAHEIM
STADIUM, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON
'BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-171 duly passed and adopted.
123: SCOREBOARD SPONSOR - CHIEF AUTO PARTS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 80R-172 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated April 14,
1980 from the City Attorney's office, authorizing a Scoreboard Sponsor Agreement
with Chief Auto Parts, a Division of the Southland Corporation, in the amount of
$125,000 per year for a 10-year period for advertising rights on one trivision
panel (three-face) on the new scoreboard). Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-172: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY cOUNcIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE .TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SCOREBOARD SPONSOR AGREEMENT WITH CHIEF
AUTO PARTS, A DIVISION OF THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, IN CONNECTION WITH ADVER-
TISING OF PRODUCTS IN THE ANAHEIM STADIUM, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour asked the total annual revenue now nego-
tiated on the scoreboard.
~ty Manager William Talley reported that with the present contract, the total
approved would be $563,000 per year or $5.6 million for the 10-year period. In
addition, Frank Lowry, Senior Assistant City Attorney had informed him that he
had another agreement in the process for an additional $125,000 ready to submit
to the Council, .which would bring the total to $685,000, or the largest income per
year of any stadium scoreboard agreement ever negotiated in the United States.
The Mayor commented on the great job staff had done in bringing to fruition such
successful negotiations of $6,850,000 over the 10-year period. It was the only
place in the country where a scoreboard continued to operate in the black.
Mr. Talley also noted that they were still working on obtaining agreements for
the outside portion of the Big "A" board.
80-535
City Hall~ __Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1980~ 1:3.0 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None ~
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-172 duly passed and adopted.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - URD SERVICE WIRE - BID NO. 3641: On motion by
Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the low bid of General
E].ectric Supply was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $18,399.48,
including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated
April 14, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
153: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE: City Manager. Talley briefed the
Council on memorandum dated April 16, 1980, from Human Resources Director Garry
McRae, recommending that the Council receive and file the report relating to the
creation of an Affirmative Action Advisory Committee at this time.
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the report relating
to the creation of an Affirmative Action Advisory Committee was ordered received
and filed'. MOTION CARRIED.
174: EXPANSION OF PRESCHOOL PROGRAM: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution
No. 80R-173, as recommended in memorandum dated April 15, 1980 from the Human
Resources Director/CETA Services, authorizing an amendment to the agreement
with the North Orange County Regional Occupation Program in the amount of
$55,283, to expand its preschool program for low-income families. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-173: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND THE NORTH ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM RELATING TO A PRESCHOOL
PROGRAM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-173 duly passed and adopted.
144: APPOINTMENT OF ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, Garry O. McRae, Human Resources Director,
was appointed for a two-year term to serve as representative to the Orange County
Manpower Commission, effective June 6, 1980, as recommended in memorandum dated
April 11, 1980 from the City Manager, with Assistant City Manager William Hopkins
to be the alternate. MOTION CARRIED.
80-536
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M,
126/179: HEIGHT STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE "COMMERCIAL-RECREATION" AREA:
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-174 for adoption, as recou~ended
in memorandum dated April 14, 1980 from the Planning Department/Planning Division,
amending Resolution No. 64R-662, to amend height standard guidelines in the
"Commercial-Recreation" area in and around Disneyland. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-174: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 64R-662 REGARDING THE GRANTING OF. WAIVERS OF HEIGHT IN
THE "COMMERCIAL-RECREATION" AREA IN AND AROUND "DISNEYLAND."
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-174 duly passed and adopted.
174: TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA: Councilman
Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-175 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated April 15, 1980, from the City Engineer, William Devitt, authorizing Sup-
plement No. 6 to the Local Agency-State Agreement providing funding for the
Canyon Industrial Area Traffic Signal Installations and Modifications (Agreement
No. 07-5055) with the understanding that staff would come back to the Council
if the bids were higher than the Agency funding participation. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-175: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. 6 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT NO. 07-5055 AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID SUPPLEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-175 duly passed and adopted.
174: MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS - HARBOR BOULEVARD AND KATELLA AVENUE:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-176 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated April 15, 1980 from the City Engineer, authorizing Supplement
No. 5 to the Local Agency-State Agreement, providing funding for the proposed
modification of traffic signals at Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue (Agreement
No. 07-5055). Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-176: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. 5 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT NO. 07-5055 AND AUTHO-
RIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID SUPPLEMENT.
80-537
City Hall~ Anaheim: California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: .None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ~
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-176 duly passed and adoPted.
117: SURRENDER OF CANCELLED STOCK CERTIFICATES FOR CASH VALUE: Councilman
Roth moved to authorize the following: Surrender of stock certificates aggre-
gating 614 share of capital stock in Pacific Holding Corporation to Continental
Illinois National Bank & Trust Company, Chicago, Illinois, in return for $32.50
cash for each share, and the execution of documents to effect the exchange;
surrender of stock certificate representing 87 shares of capital stock in the
McCarthy Company to Union Bank, Los Angeles, California, in return for $6.00 cash
for each share, and the execution of documents to effect the exchange, with the
stipulation that the $20,000 be placed in the Council Contingency Fund, as
suggested by the Mayor. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
174: 1980-81 YOUTH PROGRAM ACTIVITIES'UNDER CETA: Councilman Overholt moved
to approve the following, as recommended in memorandum dated April 15, 1980
from the Human Resources Director/CETA Services: That the CETA Services Division
assume the direct operation of the Summer Youth Employment Program effective
immediately, and all other youth programs effective October 1, 1980; an Agreement
between the City of AnaheiTM and Orange County Manpower Commission in the amount
of $16,125 for the period April 1, 1980 to June 30, 1980 to provide funds for
the operational planning of the City's 1980 Summer Youth Employment Program;
a budget adjustment to program 147 (CETA Services) to increase the work hours
by 1485 and to increase the program appropriation by $16,125 for the period
April 15, 1980 to June 30, 1980. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
150: REQUEST FOR APPRAISAL OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2910 EAST LINCOLN AVENUE--
6.3 ACRES: Deputy City Manager James Ruth first clarified questions posed by the
Council in which he explained that there was some interest in utilizing the prop-
erty for affordable housing.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Department was authorized to obtain an
appraisal of approximately 6.3 acres of City-owned land located at 2910 East
Lincoln Avenue, at a cost not to exceed $2500, as recommended in memorandum
dated April 16, 1980 from the Deputy City Manager. MOTION CARRIED.
123/135: AWARD OF ONE-YEAR GOLF CART MAINTENANCE CONTRACT - BID NO. 3634: On
motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the bid of Service
by Spencer was accepted and service authorized in the amount of $8,208 for the
term of April 24, 1980 through April 23, 1981, as recommended by the Purchasing
Agent in his memorandum dated April 2, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - CIVIC CENTER FURNITURE: (continued from April 15,
1980) Councilman Roth moved to accept the low bid of McMahan Desk, Inc. for office
furniture in accordance with provisions of Purchase Order No. K04486-E, in the
amount of $41,724.84, including tax, as recommended in memorandum dated April 9,
1980 from the Purchasing Agent. Councilman Overholt seconded°the motion.
80-538
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked the cost of the chair, a sample
of which was in the Chamber.
Mr. John Roche, Facility Maintenance Superintendent, stated that the price was
$204.16 for the Executive Swivel Chair.
Mrs. Eve Kirchman, Buyer, stated that the chairs were 42% below factory price
while other items were 51% below.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED,
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - LUMINARIES AND LAMPS - BID NO. 3639: (continued
from April 15, 1980) City Manager Talley noted that in staff report dated
April 21, 1980 from the Assistant General Manager of the Public Utilities
Department that from a review of the energy savings plus the maintenance savings,
the proposal indicated an approximate seven-year payout and it also conformed to
Council policy which was adopted in conformance with the State Energy Commission.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the low bid of
General Electric Company for Items No. 1 through 4 was accepted and purchase
authorized in the amount of $25,132.38, including tax and the iow bid of Graybar
Electric for Items No. 5 through 7 was accepted and purchase authorized in the
amount of $2,107.32, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in
his memorandum dated April 9, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
123: CHANGE OF FINANCIAL ADVISOR FOR THE ELECTRIC UTILITY: Councilman Roth
moved to approve the following as recommended in memorandum dated April 15, 1980
from the Public Utilities Board: Authorizing an agreement to terminate an agree-
ment dated April 15, 1975 with Wainwright and Ramsey, Inc., providing for financial
advisory services, and authorizing payment of $52,000 in settlement of all work
performed; authorizing an agreement with James J. Lowrey & Company in the amount
of $48,000, as Financial Advisor to the Electric Utility in connection with the
issuance of Electric Revenue bonds to finance the City's participation in the
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
1t2: SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, ET AL, VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE AND
CITY OF ANAHEIM, ET AL,: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Oouncll-
man Overholt, the Orange County Counsel was authorized to defend the City in
Southern Pacific Transportation Company, et al, vs. County of Orange and City
of Anaheim, et al., relating to property taxes, as recdmmended in memorandum
dated April 14, 1980 from the City Attorney's office. MOTION CARRIED.
127: SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - JUNE 3~ 1980 - SECTION 34 RENTAL HOUSINC
DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ELDERLY: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-177
and 80R-178, calling and ordering a Special Municipal Election to be held June 3,
1980, relating to Section 34 rental housing development for the elderly and author-
izing certain members to file arguments in favor or against said measure. Refer
to Resolution Book.
80-539
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R, 177: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 'OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, ORDERING, CALLING, PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL MUNI-
CIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON JUNE 3, 1980, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB-
MITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF SAID CITY, A MEASURE RELATING TO RENTAL
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FOR ELDERLY, HANDICAPPED AND LOW OR MODERATE INCOME PERSONS
AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH THE STATE"WIDE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD
ON SAID DATE.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-178: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE A WRITTEN ARGUMENT FOR AND AGAINST A
BALLOT MEASURE RELATING TO RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FOR ELDERLY, HANDICAPPED
AND LOW OR MODERATE INCOME PERSONS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-177 and 80R-178 duly passed and adopted.
The Mayor clarified that the entire Council would sign the argument in favor of
the measure. ~
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City
Clerk was directed to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney for
preparation of an impartial analysis. MOTION CARRIED.
180: WORKER'S COMPENSATION PROGRAM - CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION: (continued from
the meeting of April 8, 1980) City Manager Talley noted that the staff recommen-
dation was for a one-year trial period.
Mayor Seymour stated that relative to report dated April 18, 1980 from the Risk
Manager, he was satisfied with the condition, "...that after the .conclusion of
FY80-81, that contract administration proposals be solicited again."
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Manager
was authorized to give notice of cancellation to R. L. Kautz & Company, Worker's
Compensation Claims Administrator, and the Risk Management Office was authorized
to assume these functions effective July 1, 1980, as recommended in memorandum
dated April 15, 1980 from the Risk Manager. MOTION CARRIED.
.!.05/115: MOTHER COLONY HOUSEHOLD - PARTICIPATION IN THE NEW CIVIC CENTER DEDI-
CATION: Mrs. G. A. Edwards, Secretary, requesting permission to participate in
the new Civic Center dedication ceremonies through the sponsorship of an Open
House at the Mother Colony House.
Mayor Seymour noted that Mr. Leo Friis, the City's Historian Leaureate, was present
in the Council Chamber.
Mr. Leo Friis, President of the Mother Colony Household, introduced Dixie Edwards,
Secretary, and acknowledged Mrs. Sarah Peason who was also present, the Director
of the subject program. He then briefed letter dated April 4, 1980 from the
Household requesting permission to participate in the dedication ceremonies.
80-540
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1980; 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour thanked the members of the Household for being so kind and generous
relative to their proposal which activities would take place in conjunction with
the opening of the new Civic Center presently scheduled for JUne 24, 1980.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, permission was
granted for the Mother Colony Household, Inc., to participate in the new Civic
Center dedication ceremonies through the sponsorship of an open house at the
Mother Colony House. MOTION CARRIED.
167: MARTENET HARDWARE - TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FROg: C. Edward Dilkes, Attorney
representing James Steenbergen, owner of Martenet Hardware,. requesting a refund of
the $3,267 traffic signal assessment fee paid in the course of their relocation
from Project Alpha, as requested in letter dated March 27, 1980 (on file in the
City Clerk's office).
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the subject request
for a refund.of the traffic signal assessment fee paid.in the course of relocation
from Project Alpha was .approved, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memo-
randum dated April 7, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
162: ORANGE TREE HOMEOWNERS' STEERING COMMITTEE - REQUEST FOR MOBILE HOME PARK
RENT MORATORIUM: Ms. Pat Kish, 1400 Douglass Road, Space 90, first submitted
additional documentation to the Council not previously submitted regarding the
Orange Tree Park's operating expenses and a corrected rent history sheet.
Ms. Kish then read a prepared statement, the highlights of which were as follows:
"There are those who take the position that mobile home park owners can raise
rents to any extent and as often as they wish regardless of the effect on the
homeowners or the residents. Mobile home owners' rights must be protected against
damage by the unlimited rights of the park owner if and when'the two conflict.
Mobile home parks represent a unique special use of the land on which the public
is involved. Consequently, the rights of the mobile home owners must be taken
into account to protect their investments. The park owners' rights must be com-
patible with the rights of the park residents. A mobile home park is a partner-
ship. The park owner does not get a penny of his return on his original capital
investment unless the park is occupied by homes. Both partners benefit from their
investments. The complete absence of fair business practices presents an unfair-
ness in this arrangement. The park owner has full unilateral authority to des-
troy the home owner's investment for the park owner's exclusive financial gain.
This condition is neither fair~ nor just. Increased costs is not the culprit
£or this most exhorbitant rent increase. However, the factor of supply and
demand is, which resulted from controlled park development.
We the owners of the Orange Tree Mobile Home Estates respectfully request the
City Council to assist us in our sincere attempts to negotiate with the park
owner by enacting an emergency ordinance creating a mobile home park rent mor-
atorium.''
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak.
80-541
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. John G. Stanaland, Executive Vice President of Campanula Properties, Inc.,
owners of the Orange Tree Mobile Home Park, 1201 Dove Street, Suite 600, Newport
Beach, stated their rent raise of approximately 20% this time was close to the
cost of living for the Anaheim-Long Beach-Los Angeles area cost of living for
1979, which was 17.7% and inflation was running something over 25% at present.
He did not see what there was to negotiate.
No one else wished to speak to the matter.
Ms. Kish pointed out that as indicated on the information sheet, the rent increase
was the third since Proposition 13, totalling $82.50 since that time and they
received no rebate whatsoever. Further Mr. Stanaland mentioned the CPI and
in reviewing the information submitted, the CPI figures shown for February 1980~
rent residential--ll.9%, other rent costs--lO.4%. Thus, if Mr. Stanaland wanted
to go by the CPI and be a fair businessman at the same time and use those
figures, they would have a $20 increase at this time. She was certain the
residents of the park could understand a figure such as that as opposed to the
$40 increase.
In answer to Councilman Roth, Ms. Kish relayed the following relative to the
average rental space in other parks: Sunkist Gardens, between $175 and $212.
Their first rent increase was 8.5%, the second 12.5% and at present they were
receiving a $7.00 reduction in their rent based on Proposition 13 savings. Rio
Vista--S182 high range; Ponderosa, between $146 and $170 (equivalent in nature
to Orange Tree); Pacific Sunset, $162; Lincoln-Beach Mobile Manor, $152 to $162;
Friendly Village between $178 to $199; Casa Hermosa (equivalent in nature to
Orange Tree), $182, and Anaheim Royale, $160. In comparison to those figures
were the following for Orange Tree in four rate ranges: $228, $232, $239 and
$255.
Mayor Seymour asked Ms. Kish if the Council were to declare a rent moratorium,
then what would happen.
Ms. Kish answered hopefully that since the park owner was present today, he would
be more agreeable to sitting down with the select negotiating committee and dis-
cuss the matter. They were not asking him to meet with 300 people in the Club-
house, but to meet with the committee of approximately seven people and discuss
civilly and in a businesslike manner what would warrant that size of a rent
increase.
The Mayor asked again if the tenants were satisfied, what would be the next
course of action.
Ms. Kish replied that'she could not answer that because everything was done by
a majority vote of the residents; the Mayor thereupon noted that she had been
involved in what had developed in San Juan Capistrano.
Ms. Kish continued that she had been involved and the last time she talked to
the Mayor relative to San Juan Capistrano, it was contemplated that their City
Council was going to accept the mobile home review board's recommendation which
was to amend the ordinance with the new formula for raising rents which would
be based on operating expenses and so forth. The rent increases would be based
80 -542
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
on a percentage of the CPI figure increase and the past 12-month period, or 9%,
whichever was less. Unfortunately, mobile home park residents were not in a
good bargaining position. That was why they hoped to meet with the owners, other
than possibly performing an illegal act by withholding their rent or the amount
of the increase. The only other choice, if they could not afford the increase, '
was what they had been told in the past, that management would assist in sell-
ing their homes and relocating them elsewhere.
Mayor Seymour asked outright if she was supporting the creation of a rental
mediation board and did she not support the type of ordinance just adopted by
San Juan Capistrano which would limit rent increases to 9% or CPI, whichever
wasless.
Ms. Kish replied that she supported it in the respect that it had worked success-
fully in San Juan for over a year, and she could not do anything else but support
that concept.
The Mayor commented that he did not think a year would determine the success of
anything.
Ms. Kish explained that there were seven parks in San Juan and three or four had
gone before the Board with their proposed rent increases which were all resolved
to the satisfaction of all parties, and she could support that concept in Anaheim
where there were many more parks.
The Mayor noted that the owner indicated the CPI in Orange County increased
almost 20% last year and across the country it increased 13%. Her index indicated
10%. Assuming hers was correct, he asked how long would such a proposal work
if the mobile home owner was going to be limited to rent increases of 9% in
face of her figures of 10%, plus inflation. The point in questioning the sit-
uation and the problem he had with the whole concept, was that he considered
it counterproductive to the very people Ms. Kish wanted to serve, and it was
very short-term thinking. If they were unsuccessful in their negotiations,
the Council would then undoubtedly receive a request for a rental mediation
board as she asked for in San Juan and following that, a request for an ordinance
limiting rents to 9% as she had also asked for in San Juan. He did not think
the Council should be led down the path of decision making that would ultimately
conclude in something that was going to work against the people she was trying
to assist.
Ms. Kish emphasized if they had additional time to sit down with Mr. Stanaland
to ask him to be reasonable, there would be no reason for her to come before
the Council in the future and request a review board.
The Mayor stated that she had been requesting that of him personally for two or
three years. He felt that the park owner needed to be fair and the Council needed
to do what they could with respect to asking the park owners to be reasonable in
rent increases. He for one could not support a concept that would lead to
where he believed it was going to lead. Ms. Kish had been working with the
Council to try to increase the supply of all forms of rental housing and he
applauded her for her efforts, especially relative to the Friendly Village
80-543
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mobile Home Park in trying to determine if it would be feasible to convert that
to a mobile home subdivision. However, in placing a limit on the future income
of any investment, it would scare off and drive away any investment capital
that might.come in to build.
Further discussion followed between the Mayor and Ms. Kish, at the conclusion of
which Ms. Kish clarified that she was before the City Council today asking them
to assist with the powers they had to give them, the added time they were looking
for since they were working with a May 1 deadline--not a review board, rent control,
or stifling of the free enterprise system.
R~e Mayor then asked if the Council would take some action to assist in sitting
down with Mr. Stanaland, would she go on record that she would not subsequently,
regardless of the outcome of that activity, be asking for a rental mediation
board, or a 9% limitation, etc.
Ms. Kish did not think any further action would be necessary if they were success-
ful, but, if not, she assured the Mayor that she would not be the one asking for
anything further.
Councilman Roth stated he made every effort relative to rent increases to do
something and he called the owner yesterday and talked with him. He understood
the problems but to get involved with controls was a very serious problem with
him. Socializing the individual rights of property owners would destroy the
owner's rights.
Councilman Overholt stated he assumed, even to this moment, Mr. Stanaland had
refused to meet with Ms. Kish or anyone regarding the issue; Ms. Kish stated
that was correct.
Mr. Stanaland stated the only request he had to meet with anyone was with Ms.
Kish. He did not know who the members of the committee were or how many tenants
belonged to the group who signed the petitions.
Ms. Kish asked if he would be willing to meet with seven people of the steering
committee who were residents of the park.
Mr. Stanaland replied that he would like to know who they represented because he
felt there was no reason to meet with five or six people who did not represent
the majority of the tenants.
Ms. Kish stated that they did represent the majority of the residents of the
park and approximately 200 tenants had Joined the association; Mr. Stanaland
did not consider 200 of 452 tenants representative of a majority. He stated
that if they represented the majority, he would meet with them, but until
that time would not do so, because he did not see any point to it.
For clarification, Ms. Kish asked if he was saying that if 51% of the residents
of the park were represented by a select steering committee, he would then agree
to meet with them.
80-5
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Stanaland anwered "yes".
Councilman Overholt concluded that if Ms. Kish could get the majority of the park
signed up, then they would have a meeting scheduled with Mr. stanaland and the
meeting today had perhaps accomplished that.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 20 minutes. (2:50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:10 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3132 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10941): Application by
Beam Development Company to construct a l-lot, 24-unit condominium subdivision
on property located on the south side of Canyon Rim Road and west of Serrano
Avenue with Code waivers of maximum structural height and permitted building
location, was submitted.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-32, having con-
sidered EIR No. 234, finds that it is in compliance with the California Environ-
mental Quality Act and with City and State EIR guidelines and therefore certified
EIR No. 234 and further, granted Variance No. 3132 subject to the following
conditions: '
No. 73-74-46, now pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specification on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos 1
through 11. ·
That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of ReclassifiCation
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by residents of Anaheim
Hills, and public hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the. staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission. She also clarified for Councilman Bay that on
the revised plan submitted where it indicated two-story within 40 feet of R-l,
it was originally 20 feet and that was the distance approved by the Planning
Commission. The revisions were submitted after the Planning Commission hearing.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Bob Mickelson, Planning Consultant, 134 South Glassell, Orange, speaking
on behalf of the owners, first reviewed the action before the Planning Commis-
sion since he felt it important in leading up to the revised plan submitted to
the Council today. Working from a posted site plan, Mr. Mickelson described the
specifics of the project. He noted that relative to the requested waivers, there
were other cases in the Anaheim Hills area where somewhat similar variances had
been granted, particularly with regard to the scenic corridor setback. They
appeared before the Planning Commission essentially with the plan posted on the
Chamber wall and the neighbors had objected to that plan on a number of points.
8O-545
~it~ Nall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
They were concerned about loss of view but did not recognize that they did not
have an absolute right to that entire view. He briefed the Planning Commission
minutes of February 25, 1980 (see Planning Commission that date) containing a
sensitive discussion regarding the issue of impairment of their view wherein
escrow papers submitted indicated clearly that the lots purchased by the neighbors
were not view lots and that any view the property might now have of presently
undeveloped land was not guaranteed or intended as a part of the value of their
homes. They were also objecting to the fact that when they bought their homes,
they were convinced that that was going to be a park someday. There was reason
for them to be convinced of that because City staff at one time did seriously
consider accepting that from Anaheim Hills as a park site. However, it was
later rejected at staff level. Other objections were: concern about.the open.
space recreation being so close to their backyards. The developer assured them
the complex was going to be an adult project and there would be no playground.
They did not want a swimming pool and Beam Development agreed to negotiate with
the residents. ~If they preferred not to have a pool, they would go to some kind
of jacuzzi or something that would be acceptable. Another objection, partic-
ularly the party who owned the home at the easterly end of the property, did not
feel that the units at that end should be as close to his property line am pro-
posed.
The Planning Commission asked them to relook at the situation and meet with the
residents again, which they did. They looked at the patio home concept, i..e.,
a zero lot line with the patio on the side of the home with the same density,
24 units. The developer felt he could probably make as good a project financially
or perhaps better with patio homes. However, some of the additional constraints
they took into account when they worked on the initial design of the project
revolved around the fact that the people in the Anaheim Hills area wanted something
of a comparable quality. They felt they needed something with some substance to
it, larger and more spacious units that would be in a price category more in
keeping with the general area. When they went to the patio homes, the first
thing that was obvious to them was that they would be smaller and sell for less
money and, therefore, perhaps not be as desirable in the overall scheme of
development of that sectiom of Anaheim Hills.
The second and most significant thing was that they could comply with the
ordinance to the letter on that type of plan--single story entirely within
the 150 feet, but when adding the roof lines to get.the feeling of quality,
it entirely cut off the view. They tried to preserve at least the feeling
of open space and being able to look out between the buildings from almost
every lot, granted that the neighbors views were reduced. The net result was
that they.came back to the Planning C~mmission with what they felt was the
best plan, and they approved it.
Mr. Mickelson then explained that one of the more severe constraints was relative
to access to the property, since they had only two choices for access. He then
explained the technicalities involved and the reasons for their choice, as well
as what they had to do to make it accessible and safe, which he felt was impor-
tant in their consideration.
80-546
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1950~ 1:3~ P.M.
The residents were not fully satisfied with the Planning Commission's decision
and thus the developer talked to staff and the Mayor and were encouraged to
take an even harder look at one of the requests the Planning Commission made,
to do something with the buildings at the narrow easterly end of the property
and those on the southwest portion of the property. He then presented the
revised plan and explained in detail from the plan the changes they had made.
The two umits (southwest) adjacent to the single-familY tract were still some
20 feet below the grade level. They changed those to single story unitm and
tried to spread them out to compensate for the loss in square footage area and
to keep the quality of the project up. Relative to the roof line, in the pre-
vious plan, the peak of the roof did come up into the view line of the three
adjacent residents towards that end of the property some two or three feet. Now,
standing in those three backyards and possibly the fourth, it was possible to
look out over that roof line and into the valley.
On the easterly portion where the request was made to move the building back,
they considered two Possibilities and in so doing opted to move those three
units further away from that adjacent residential lot. Now, instead of being
parallel to the line at 20 feet (which he pointed to from the plan), the building
was 25 feet back at the nearest corner and 45 feet back at the farthest corner.
Unit 2 was now a 2-story, whereas previously they were all 1-story units.
Mr. Mickelson concluded that the site plan was now slightly revised from what
the Planning Commission previously approved. They had single-story to the
southwest with a possible view over the roofs, the units to the east were
moved further away, it did meet the parking requirements and was within the
50-foot setback that the Planning Commission approved along Canyon Rim Road.
They would also work with the neighbors in developing a recreation area satis-
factory to them.
In answer to questions posed by Councilman Roth and Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr.
Mickelson relayed the following: the price range for the units was approximately
$145,000 plus for the least expensive; the ingress and egress onto Canyon Rim
Road was safe due to the plans they had devised for that access point which
he explained in detail; staff had seen the revised plan, but the residents had
only seen it today. He also explained how the views of the neighbors would be
less impacted as a result of the revised plan.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Don Rogers, 7283 East Drake Drive, stated he was present because his property
was adjacent to the proposed project (fourth home'from the left on the site plan).
Basically what Mr. Mickelson had explained was the truth. In March of 1976,
they were informed that there was a premium price on the property they wanted
to purchase and they contacted Anaheim Hills to find out what was going to be
developed behind them in regard to that premium for which he paid $5,000. They
spoke to a Vern Taylor and were told there were plans for a park on the parcel
further to the west. According to Mr. Taylor and Anaheim Hills, there was the
possibility of the land becoming a park site. In September of 1976, they closed
escrow and at that time the depth of the crevice was approximately 25 to 30 feet.
Prior to constructing their fences, they called Mr. Doyle of Anaheim Hills ask-
ing to be up-dated on what was going on with the property and according to the
80-547
~City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April~22, 1980, 1:30 P.M~
CCR's, they had to put in wrought iron fences so as not to obstruct their views.
He stated there was a 98% chance of it being a park and that any structure that
was built there would not hamper anyone's view. They were aware they purchased
premium lots and they asked Anaheim Hills what designated such lots. They were
~ told it was a large parcel of land or large lot site, on a cul-de-sac, or had a
view. They had the same size lot as the neighbors across the street, 65 X 100,
and they were on a cul-de-sac as were the neighbors across the street, the point~
being, that the neighbors did not pay a premium.
In the spring of 1979, when they noticed the advertising for future residential
development, they again contacted Mr. Doyle who told them that the park site had
been rejected and they would be informed as to further development on the pro-
perty. They had a meeting with Mr. Dan Salceda of Anaheim Hills, who told them
that the property had been purchased by Beam Development and they would be
contacting them as to what was planned for the parcel. They met with the
Planning Commission, and Beam Development had to come back with a compromise.
They were not present today to deny Mr. Beam the right to build on his parcel,
but he was aware it was a hardship parcel when he purchased it as well as the
land limitations and the variances in the area which did exist at that time.
He reiterated it was not their intent to ask the Council to deny the right to
build, but to take into consideration that the developer was willing to take
away their views and give them to the people he was moving onto that property.
Relative to the switching to single story structures, they were more than a
single story. It represented what they felt was a story and one-half because
the garages were underneath the building the same as with the two-stories.
Working from the exhibits, Mr. Rogers discussed bow he felt their views would
be affected even with the proposed changes and made some suggestions that he
felt would more or less give everybody what they asked for and satisfy the
residents in the area. He felt that he spoke not only for those people living
in the property adjacent to the proposed project, but also they walked the tract
and turned in a petition at the Planning Commission meeting which represented
more than half of their tract. They were concerned not only about the subject
site, but also what was going to happen to them later downstream.
Mr. Rogers then recounted for Councilman Roth what had occurred at the Planning
Commission meeting relative to the statement in the escrow papers regarding views.
Mr. Mike Murray, 7299 Drake Drive, the property adjacent to the far easterly
portion of the proposed project, first stated that he was amazed they were now
able to get revised plans. He thereupon thanked the Mayor for going to his
residence a few weeks ago and perhaps having conversations with the builders.
Relative to his property, he wanted to know where the fence would be and,
secondly, as far as he was concerned, the revised plan was acceptable to him
but he asked that there be some mature landscaping installed so that he could
not see anything except trees. He did not want to have to look at the two-
story units and if trees were planted and the Council were to have some type
of enforcement, then he would have very little complaint whatsoever. He did
care that his view would be impacted, but since that was the case and he could
not do anything about it, he would go to the next step. He would have no view,
but he did not care to look at a 10-foot wall either, or a 30-foot turning radius.
80-548
Ci.t~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
No one else wished to speak either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Mickelson was
thereupon given an opportunity to rebut.
Mr. Mickelson then clarified the following: Mr. Rogers had expressed concern
about looking at a 9-foot high solid wall. He first noted that they still had
not plotted Mr. Rogers' residence correctly on the plan and his house was actually
much closer to the rear property line than depicted. The building adjacent to
the Rogers' property which they said would be a 9-foot solid wall up and above
the pad was a misunderstanding, because with the 9-foot grade difference, that
would take care of the first story. The other 9 feet would be the roof structure
which would be peaked and, therefore, it was not as though they would see a
solid mass of wall. They also did explore the possibility of lowering the pad
and thus the roof line, but there was no way they could do so for reasons which
he explained.
Relative to Mr. Murray's question on the 6-foot fence, he did not think the City
would allow them to build a double 6-foot wrought iron fence. The fence would
be added where it did not exist, but they would not duplicate or replace the one
that was there.
Relative to the middle landscaping, they did say in their meeting with the
residents some time ago that they would present them with a landscaping plan
done by a professional landscaping firm for their review. They might have to
do some negotiating on that because he was not certain everyone would want a
solid hedge of trees. Landscaping could be put in to block a direct view
from patio to patio or window to window if that was a concern.
Councilman Roth stated that the point he made previously relative to the views
had to do with the fact that most of the views from the rear of the adjacent lot
were oriented upward and to the northwest. The basic and most scenic view was
over Canyon R~n Road. Considering the fact that the property was zoned for
multiple-family, the neighbors could have been impacted to a greater degree, and
he felt that they had prdposed a good compromise.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted a statement had been made that the property was 20
feet to 25 feet lower at one time. She asked if the developer had brought in
any fill.
Mr. Mickelson answered that they had not done so but they understood it had been
filled from its natural state and at one time it was a deeper ravine.
Councilwoman Kaywood then stated that the existing residents were then ]usified
in believing that nothing would go in to impair their view.
Mr. Mickelson stated he felt that had to be a matter of opinion. He did not
think it was possible to build any structure on the site and still maintain
the entire view at this time with a single-story or whatever.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Mayor Seymour then recounted what he had learned in his meetings with the people
and also relayed the history of the subject property. From what he had seen,
in his opinion, what the developer had done was about the best he could do with
80-549
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, 1980, 1:30 P~M.
the property. He could go to patio homes without even appearing before t~e
Council and was trying to develop what he felt would be an award-winning archi-
tecturally successful project. On the other hand, if he lived there, he would
want to do everything he could to protect his view even though there was no
legal requirement that it be maintained. The point was that the best was
being done with what they had to work with and he thanked the developer for
having a positive attitude and for taking a hard look at the situation even
though at a late hour. He still needed to answer the additional concern of
Mr. Murray relative to the landscaping and some neighbors might not want it at
all.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 234 - CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact Report
No. 229 having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City Plan-
ning Commission to be in compliance with City and State guidelines and the State
of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon such infor-
mation and belief does hereby certify on motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded
by Councilman Roth, that Environmental Impact Report No. 234 is in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and State guidelines as
recommended by the City Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-179 for adoption, granting Variance
No. 3132 in accordance with City Planning Commission conditions, subject to the
revised plans as submitted and to the approval of a specific landscape plan by
staff, and that developer is to meet with homeowners to determine the type of
landscaping they are interested in. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-179: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF. ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3132.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if they had built patio homes, could
they have built 2-story units within 150 feet; Miss Santalahti explained that a
RS-5000 single-family tract, which would be consistent with the General Plan,
could be constructed in that zone.
Councilman Bay thereupon stated that was the key point in the differences of
opinion. He could not buy an argument relative to view if the escrow stated
clearly that they were not purchasing a view lot. Although he could from a
sympathetic standpoint listen to an argument on view, he could not from a legal
standpoint. He was concerned whether legally without any variance there was a
way to totally block that view without any variance of the 150-foot setback and
apparently he had just been told that was possible. At this point, he had to
agree that considering the changes the developer'had made, the adjacent residents
could do a lot worse without any variance. On that argument, he could support
the resolution.
Councilman Overholt stated he was going to support the resolution and complimented
the developer and the residents present today. They were both working together
and would continue to do so in the landscaping of the project to accommodate their
mutual interests. He felt that a workable plan had been devised.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the reason people were moving to the hills was for
the views. She had great empathy and sympathy for anybody who purchased property
next to a canyon that did not look like it could be filled in, or ever impact
their views and they were repeatedly told by the developer or owner that they
80-550
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
would never have a structure obstruction in their views. To pay a premium and then
to have someone come in and raise the level of the property, although the
developer in this case did not do so, but somebody did, then it did change the
whole situation. They had to be very careful and take a look at the canyon
area to prevent such things from occurring in the future.
The Mayor stated relative to the fill, if it had been a City park, it would have
been filled because there was no way to get onto the property unless fill were
used. The reason it had been filled was because Canyon Rim Road was so much
higher than the property.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-179 duly passed and adopted.
170: WOODCREST HOMES ASSOCIATION - SLOPES WITHIN TRACT 8455: Mr. Zane S.
Averbach, Attorney for the Association, requesting to discuss the slope prob-
lem in Tract No. 8455, property located on the south side of Canyon Rim Road,
easterly of Nohl Ranch Road.
Mayor Seymour stated he was going to abstain from discussion and voting on
the matter since at one time or another Woodcrest Homes was a client of his.
He thereupon turned the chairmanship of the meeting over to Mayor Pro Tem
Overholt.
Mayor Seymour left the Council Chamber. (4:30 P.M.)
Mr. Zane Averbach, Law Offices, Samuel Goldfarb, 15720 Ventura Boulevard, Encino,
Attorney for the Woodcrest Homeowners Association, stated the last time he was
present was last summer (see minutes July 24, 1979) and upon a motion by the
Council, the City Engineer and Westfield Development were to look into possible
solutions to the slope problem. The report from the City Engineer dated April 16,
1980 (on file in the City Clerk's office) did not adequately address the problem.
Their problem was further complicated by the fact that Westfield was required t~
post a bond to grade the property, which bond was posted on May 2, 1975 and to
date the bond had not been released. It was the opinion of Mr. Jack White,
Deputy City Attorney, which he had expressed on several occasions, that the
statute of limitations would run on May 2, 1980 unless suit was filed to bring
the case to court by then. The Association was back to the Council asking them
to take action on a long overdue problem, file suit on the bond and let the
Association join and work with the City to get the problem resolved in order to
set a precedent in the City.
Councilman Roth asked the City Attorney to address the issue and make his reco-
mendation accordingly.
80-551
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that they had reviewed the matter in great detail
and as Mr. Averbach had stated, the bond was going to require action on or before
May 2, 1980. The engineers made a study of the problem and there had been soils
experts and numerous technical investigations and apparently the soil was such
that it would not bear any type of vegetation. The report they had received
indicated there was some risk if borings of various types were made or any holes
to accomplish a certain type of planting and thus, the stability of the slopes
might be impaired.
Accordingly, it was his recommendation because of the fact that in order to
collect on the bond, the City would be required to actually perform the land-
scaping, that the Council take no action on the bond and leave the homeowners
or the Association to pursue whatever remedies they believed they had. They
had been informed by the developer that they felt their defense would be im-
possibility of performance because the ground did not seem to adapt itself to
vegetation. Another alternative which they did not recommend would be to assign
the City's rights under the bond to the Woodcrest Homeowners Association and
allow them to litigate the issue if they so desired. He confirmed for Mayor
Pro Tem Overholt that they felt the best course of action would be to take no
action, but the alternative was to assign the rights to the bond to the Associ-
ation.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked what risks, if any, the City would incur by such
an assignment.
Mro Hopkins replied that he did not believe there would be any risks to the City
under the assignment but merely accepting the bond and exercising whatever rights
the City had under that particular assignment.
Mr. Averbach asked what would happen to the unplanted barren slopes when they
came falling down. He advised his clients that to ignore the problem was an
unacceptable solution and that basically if action was not taken, the whole of
the Board of Director's must resign because the liability would be incredible.
Also, he had not seen any report stating that the slopes were not plantable.
Mrs. Ethel Gowa~ President of the Association, was present to explain that the
Homeowners Association had planted the slopes successfully themselves and there
was no report from any expert that said the slopes were impossible to plant. The
fact that they had been planted successfully was evidence of that. He suggested
that the City Attorney was reading verbatim from a letter from Westfield stating
it was impossible to do. He submitted to the Council that impossiblity of per-
formance of a contract was difficult to prove in a court of law.
In his conversations with Jack White, he asked how could the City not sue on the
bond and accept the liability that the homeowners might bring. He (White) suggested
that there was no liability and he (Averbach) brought him some research which
he prepared on inverse condemnation and third party beneficiary contracts. In
the event the Association was required to file a law suit, the City would be
named in the lawsuit for inverse condemnation as a creditor of the Homeowners
Association.'
Mr. Hopkins stated that they had reviewed the entire file and he was not reading
from the developer's letter but his own notes. The investigations that were made
by the developer, from all indications, revealed that the slopes were not
plantable. For over a year, they had been encouraging the engineers and developer
80-552
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
to get together to try to plant the slopes but it had not been done, the indica-
tion ~eing that plantings would not be successful. If the Associaton fe~t iC
had a causeof action, then it would be his recommendation that the Association
bring their cause of action against the developer and compel him to perform as
required. He did not feel that the City should become involved in the matter
because of the nature of the bond itself.
Mr. Averbach suggested that they hear from the City Engineer as to whether or
not the slopes were plantable.
City Engineer William Devitt stated he felt it was a legal matter now and deferred
to the City Attorney.
Mr. Hopkins asked if the slopes were plantable why had they not been planted in
the last year.
Mr. Averbach replied that no one had made an effort to plant them and there had
not been a planting in the two years he had been involved in the matter, but there
were two plantings previous to that, which were both failures.
Councilman Seymour entered the Council Chamber. (4:45 P.M.)
Mr. Charles Unsworth, Attorney for Westfield Development, 1802 Skypark Circle,
Irvine, stated he was also present at the July 24, 1979 meeting (see minutes
that date). As at that meeting, Mr. Unsworth again presented an expensive
chronology of the actions taken by Westfield Development in their attempt to
solve the difficult slope problem. He also wanted to be certain the letter
which Mr. White requested that he send dated March 5, 1980, stating their
position had been communicated to those who were making the decision. He also
briefed the Council on that letter.
At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Unsworth stated there was no easy
way out of the situation and obviously the easiest thing for the developer to
do was to do nqthing. Ail of the normal procedures, as well as what they believed
extraordinary measures, had been taken by Westfield in attempting to come up with
a solution. He did not intend to try to forecast what a court might do. The
City could finance litigation easier than his client. It wam hie opinion that
they did have an impossibility defense, but they would prefer to have a way to
solve the problem. Over the long period of time, no one had come to his client
with a method to solve the situation and then allowing him client to be relieved
of liability. The problem was that they kept going further in bamically going
against the advice of the experts. Keckoff Brothers recommended digging holes,
the soils engineer recommended against digging holes. They had also been ad-
vised by the City Engineer when it came down to stability vs. aesthetics, they
had to go with stability. He was also convinced that if litigation was commenced
during the four or five years it would probably take, the people at' She bottom
of the slope and even at the top were very likely to have an interest dverse
to the people at the foot of the top of the slope. They were going to H e to
decide whether they wanted aesthetics or stability. ~
80-553
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, ~980.~..1:30 P.M.
In concluding, Mr. Unsworth advised that they had tried--they knew tha~ the City
could sue them and that the Association could sue them, but they felt ~hey would
prevail. However, if the Association and the City beat them, they would still
not have landscaped slopes. He believed that anyone who would have all the
tests done that they had performed would conclude that they did not want to
dig holes in the slopes and take the chance of destroying their stability. He
reiterated, they tried everything possible and brought in all the experts they
could find while spending $30,000 on that one spot alone.
Mrs. Ethel Gowa, President of Woodcrest Homeowners Association, countered that
what Westfield was quoting that it cost to perform the tests was not so. She
then recounted some of the things that had been done by the developer, in one
instance sprinkling the slopes with some blue material and thereafter watering
it so excessively that it washed down the slope leaving nothing on the top, but
a lot of vegetation on the bottom. She stated that they did not try as hard as
they claimed. Some of the homeowners tried to plant eanis, ice plant, bushes
and roses and they grew on the slope, but they could not plant the whole thing.
The slopes were still a problem and they did not know what to do and that was
why they were present today. The builder was gone and the Council should think
of them and not the builder.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that they did see three reports previously, soils
and plant experts, containing differing opinions. If they were given a choice of
safety or aesthetics, she wanted to know what the homeowners would choose.
Mrs. Gowa replied that there was no safety involved. The planting that had been
tried was still there and had been there for 1½ years.
Mr. Averbach' stated that the slopes unplanted might be safer now than planted,
but.he felt it was clear that eventually the slopes would erode and they were
going to go. The time to find and work on a solution was now and not put it
off for another five, ten or fifteen years until the slopes were gone. Some of
the planted slopes slipped in the last heavy rain. Unplanted slopes posed a
much greater problem and to ignore the problem was to bury one's head in the
sand°
Mrs. Gowa reported that where the planted slopes had fallen, they'hired a
geologist and engineer to tell them what was wrong, but they did not have the
report back as yet.
Councilman Bay asked the City Attorney if they turned the bond over to the Home-
owners Association, would that put the City in a liability position.
Mr. Hopkins answered that turning the bond over to the homeowners would then
enable them to take whatever action they felt appropriate to recover on the
bond. Basically then, the bonding company and the developer would be in a
position that they would have to respond to any litigation involved. Whether
a court would feel that the City had any obligation, they would have to wait
and see what action was taken, but the City would not be in a liability position
if they turned over the bond. They would work out an agreement'with the Associ~
ation when they accepted.
80-554
ity Hail, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated he considered it the strong duty of the Council to protect
the City from any liability in the case. He had come to the conclusion that
there seemed to be an aesthetics vs. stability situation or it was potentially
that and he was trying to figure a way to be fair with the Association, while
at the same time not putting the City in a liability position.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that the City Attorney answered the question--
that the assignment of any rights the City might have on the bond would put
the homeowners in the same position the City was now in, being indemnified for
lack of performance by the builder. If the City assigned that right to the
Association and they chose to exercise the rights under that bond, he was also
saying that would not put the City in any greater liability than at present.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the City were to assign the bond and the homeowners
opted to dig holes, and whatever they'dtd caused the slopes to fail, who would be
responsible?
City Attorney Hopkins replied that whoever dug the holes would be responsible
and they would resist any effort to hold the City responsible for the digging
of any holes. ~He then confirmed for Councilman Roth that they had not changed
their recommendation--it was to take no action with respect to the bond, leaving
the Association to pursue whatever remedies they believed they had. He was
merely saying that the alternative would be acceptable, to assign the bond to
the Woodcrest Homeowners Association.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the City take no action against the
developer and assign the City's rights under the Performance Bond to the
Association in a timely manner so that they will have sufficient time to
institute litigation if they choose to do so. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated his reasons for offering
the foregoing motion was because the City Attorney recommended that they take
no action and his office had reviewed the history of the case from the beginning.
They also had the benefit for the second time of Mr. Unsworth's description of
what had been done. They also heard Mr. Averbach's position. He (Overholt) was
convinced that no action by the City was appropriate. However, if there was
the benefit of security afforded by the bond, they should defer to the home-
owners and give them the opportunity to have that security and that the assign-
ment without any further liability to the City was appropriate.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour abstained
MOTION CARRIED. '
156: HEARING - EAST COUNTY TOWING COMPANY PERMIT: Requiring James Michael Boone,
owner, to show cause why his City license to conduct private party impounds should
not be Suspended/revoked for failing to maintain insurance to allow for the
ability to respond to damages resulting from the operation of his business.
Mr. James Boone stated the problem arose due to an oversight on his part that
the insurance was left to lapse. They had been in contact with their insurance
company and the City and the matter would be handled immediately. He was willing
to agree to any suspension of his permit until the insurance was again in force.
80-555
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that pursuant to AMC Section 4.75.120, the
City Council suspends the towing permit of Mr. James Michael Boone, dba East
County Towing, until such time as Mr. Boone's company submits evidence to the
Anaheim Police Department that he has obtained insurance coverage that will
enable him to respond to damages resulting from the operation of his towing
business. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
159: NATURAL GAS FUELING STATION: City Manager Talley briefed the Council
relative to the subject on a recommendation made by Mr. A1 Merriam, Mechanical
Maintenance Superintendent, that the Council authorize him to submit a bid not
to exceed $100,000 for the purchase of a Used Natural Gas Fuelin~' Station and'
related appurtenances for vehicle application to'the County of Santa Clara,
California, and that the necessary :~funds be temporarily allocated out of the
Council Contingency Fund, with the stipulation that the Public Works Department
would be willing to transfer from its budget if required any of the amount used
in the bid.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent
be authorized to submit a bid not to exceed $100,000 for the purchase of the
Used Natural Gas Fueling Station and related appurtenances for vehcile
application to the County of Santa Clara. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth recalled that many months back he rec-
ommended they look into the same arrangement because it had been very successful
with Yell. ow Cab Company using the combination of natural gas and gasoline and
thus, he was supportive of the above request for two reasons: (1) because of the
high cost of gasoline, enabling independence from that commodity, and (2) air
quality. He commended staff and the City Manager because he felt the proposal
was the right alternative to take.
Mr. Talley commented that Mr. Merriam had met with Larry Slagle of Yellow Cab
and was apprised of his efforts. He had been very supportive and cooperative
in giving advice. He noted also that if the bid was successful, it would move
the City into the field more rapidly than anticipated.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator and the Application for Lease to Present Late
Claims were denied:
a. Claim submitted by The Travelers Indemnity Company on behalf of Fischbach
and Moore, Inc., regarding personal injury sustained by Tammy Ramirez from a
utility pole on or near the northwest corner of Santa Ana Street and State
College Boulevard on or about February 4, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by Del E. Webb Corporation for property damages to construc-
tion work on new Civic Center purportedly sustained as a result of inadequate
storm drains at Broadway and Claudina on or about January 28 and 29, 1980, and
February 14, 1980.
80-556
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
c. Claim submitted by Kirk Shafonsky for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of inadequate warning of roadwork on Nohl Ranch Road between Imperial
Highway and Anaheim Hills Road, on or about March 12, 1980. ·
d. Claim submitted by Carol A. Conkol for property damages purportedly sustained
at 638 South Valley Street as a result of water turned on by City employee, on
or about March 20, 1980.
e. Claim submitted by Timothy J. Barry for damages to vehicle purportedly sus-
tained as a result of limb from parkway tree falling on automobile parked in
front of 707 South Helena Street, on or about February 16, 1980.
f. Claim submitted by Tina Casilli for personal injury and vehicular damages
purportedly sustained as a result of water-covered hole in pavement at Crescent
Avenue and Chippewa Street, on or about January 9, 1980.
g. Claim submitted by Clara Cass for personal injury damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of dangerous sidewalk condition in front of 100 North
Philadelphia Street, on or about February 28, 1980.
h. Claim submitted by Mr. R. Sabicer for various property damage purportedly
sustained as a result of City tree trimming crew causing a branch of a tree to
fall on power line, on or about April 1, 1980.
i. Claim submitted by Aetna Casualty & Surety on behalf of Catherine Break, for
vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of malfunctioning traffic
signals at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue, on or
about December 28, 1979.
j. Claim submitted by James D. Gilmore for personal injuries purportedly sus-
tained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police, on or about February 29, 1980.
k. Claim submitted by Raymond F. Hardwick for damages to property purportedly
sustained as a result of flooding caused by collapse of a part of Santa Ana
Canyon Road, on or about January 27, 1980.
1. Claim submitted by Raymond F. Hardwick for damages to property purportedly
sustained as a result of second flooding caused by collapse of roadway and inad-
equate corrective measures taken after first flooding, on or about March 3, 1980.
m. Claim submitted by James R. Steinmetz for damages to vehicle purportedly
sustained as a result of vandalism while claimant's car was parked in northwest
corner of employees' parking lot at Anaheim Stadium, on or about April 11, 1980.
n. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim submitted by Christopher Edward
and Lynn Myers for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of unsafe
railroad crossing protection at the Southern Pacific Railroad Crossing, BK-508.4,
on Loara Street, north of Lincoln Avenue, on or about November 18, 1979.
o. Application For Leave To Present Late Claim submitted by Ronald Robert
Florence for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of
defective and dangerous condition existing on Nohl Ranch Road near the intersection
of Canyon Rim Road, on or about April 15, 1979.
80-55~
City Hall~ Ana. heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1980~ 1~30 P.M.
2o CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and fi,led:
a. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for March 1980.
b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of April 2, 1980.
MOTION CARRIED.
150: PEARSON PARK HANDBALL COURT--FINAL ACCEPTANCE: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 80R-180 for adoption, in accordance with the recom-
mendation and certification Submitted by the Public Works Executive Director.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-180: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT~ 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 COM-
PLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PEARSON PARK HANDBALL COURTS,
IN THE CIl~ OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-807-7107. (Hondo Company, Inc.)
ORDINANCE NOS. 4119 AND 4120: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 4119
and 4120 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4119: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE
14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.152 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO
SUBSECTION .070 RELATING TO TWO-HOUR PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (Blue Gum Street, on the
east side, from 210 feet south of Coronado Street to La Palma Avenue, and on the
west side, from Coronado Street to Blue Gum Way)
ORDINANCE NO. 4120: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51 (40), RS-HS-22,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4119 and 4120 duly passed and adopted.
156: ORDINANCE NO. 4121: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4121 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4121: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 7.20
OF TITLE 7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO GAMBLING.~
ORDINANCE NO. 4122: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4122 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4122: AN ORDINANCE OF ~{E CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-36(3), RM-2400, Tract Nos.
8775 and 8796, Anaheim Shores)
80-55 8
C__ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
114: WATER TRIP - COLORADO RIVER AQUEDUCT: Councilman Overholt reported on
his.participation in the recent water trip Thursday, Friday and Saturday, Apri% 17
through 19, which included the Colorado River Aqueduct, Diemer Filtration Plant
and.Parker Dam. He especially emphasized that Mr. Joseph Truxaw, the City's
representative on the Metropolitan Water Distrct Board, was to be highly commended
for the great job he was doing. Representatives of the Public Utilities Board
and Water staff also commented to him how pleased they were with Mr. Truxaw
relative to his knowledge and aggressiveness. He hoped that in the near future
Mr. Truxaw would have an opportunity to come before the Council to make a report.
Mayor Seymour also stated that he had received very positive reports about Mr.
Truxaw, as.well as from Mr. Thornton Eberson, who was a member of the MWD Board
and had been for many years.
105: RESIGNATION FROM THE YOUTH COMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to
the letter received from Joe Rangel tendering his resignation from the Youth
Commission.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the resignation of Joe Rangel from the
Youth Commission with regret and that a letter of thanks be sent for his service,
with the vacancy to be advertised accordingly. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
109: REQUEST BY l~tE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SUPPORT THE REINSTATMENT OF 15
SPECIAL AGENTS: Councilman Roth referred to the letter received from the
State Attorney General, regarding Governor Brown's cut of 15 special agents
from the Department of Justice. The agent positions were to be funded out of
the existing Department funds at no added cost to the taxpayers. In the Attorney
General's opinion, his Department's ability to investigate and prosecute drug
dealers would thus be hampered. He recommended that a letter be sent in
support of the Attorney General's request.
Mayor Seymour stated he would sign the letter on behalf of the CoUncil. CoUncil-
man Bay suggested that a copy also be sent to the League of Cities, County
Supervisors and Sheriff Brad Gates.
Councilman Roth moved to support the Attorney General's request that the
Governor reinstate funds for the 15 special agents with a letter to be sent to
the Governor under the Mayor's signature, with copies to be sent to the League
of Cities, County Supervisors and Sheriff Brad Gates. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
155: AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Councilman Roth reported that last Thursday, April 17,
1980, he spoke before the Chamber's City/County Government Committee on affordable
housing. Mr. Gil Ferguson of CEEED (Californian's For An Environment of Excellence,
Full Employment and a Strong Economy Through Planned Development) was also present
and was completely unaware of the leadership Anaheim had taken in affordable
housing including the "super stamp" procedure. He suggested in the future
when Anaheim made another breakthrough such as the "super stamp" process or
trade-offs to promote affordable housing, that staff provide Mr. Gil Ferguson
of CEEED with appropriate data.
80-559
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MII~dTES - April 22~_ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
169: POTENTIAL TRAFFIC PROBLEM - OLIVE STREET AND NEW LINCOLN: Councilman
Roth noted the progress that was being made on new Lincoln Avenue and further
noted that when people used that street travelling east, all of that traffic
would empty onto Olive Street which was very narrow. He suggested that staff
evaluate the situation to avoid the potential problem of having the world's
greatest traffic jam at the corner of Olive and new Lincoln Avenue.
167: TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION - EAST STREET AND LINCOLN AVENUE: Councilman
Roth referred to the request he made at the meeting of December 11, 1979 relative
to traffic signal modification wherein he requested that priority be given to the
signal at the intersection of East Street and Lincoln Avenue. He was anxious to
have action taken relative to that signal.
Mayor Seymour also requested a report on the left-turn signal at La Palma and
Imperial Highway.
114: CULTURAL EDUCATION CONFERENCE: Councilman Bay reported that last evening,
April 21, at the Holiday Inn in Anaheim, he welcomed visitors from Mexico City,
including the Director of the Cultural Exchange Unit of the Secretariat of
Public Education in Mexico. She was present in Anaheim to participate in the
Ninth Annual International Bilingual, Bicultural Education Conference held at
the Convention Center. The conference included approximately 7,000 visitors.
He felt that there was a lot of room for some additional PR between Mexico
and Anaheim, particularly Mexico City. He also thanked Dean Grose for expe-
diting to him a replica of the Big "A" and the Leo Friis book on the history
of Anaheim on such short notice.
114: ANAHEIM COMMUNITY ENTERTAINERS (ACE): Mayor Seymour reported that he
again met with Mr. John Parkson of ACE for the third or fourth time. The
Council was familiar with the group's previous requests and he (Parkson) now
had two other requests for assistance to ask of the Council and the City.
(1) Would the City Council be willing to permit a utility billing insert that
would offer citizens of Anaheim a special reduced rate to attend their produc-
tions at $1 per member of the family, as opposed to the regular rate of $3 or
$3.25 per person. They would be willing to pay for the printing and whatever
else was necessary for the insert and were merely looking to piggyback the
utility bill. (2) Relative to the policy of the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department requiring a split in the gross sales of food and beverages
that would take place at a function conducted at the Pearson Park Theatre, they
were asking the Council to waive that 15% participation in the sale of food and
beverages. Mr. Parkson presented the request in the interest of attempting to
bring summer musicals to the Pearson Park Theatre. He assured the Mayor that
in relationship to their funding, they were prepared to fund their activities
themselves. He believed it currently had a $326 bill outstanding with the City
and Mr. Parkson indicated that they intended to pay that bill. The bottom line
of the request was that they (ACE) were trying to be good citizens and bring
summer musicals to Pearson Park and the citizens of Anaheim, and they were asking
assistance in those two areas.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that they were again trying to bypass
the Park and Recreation Commission and the Department. Propositions 13 and 14 had
passed and there was now the possibility of Proposition 9. They were asking to
change the policy the Department used to raise funds, and she did not see why
80-560
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
any one group should get special treatment. As well, she questioned the background
ACE had relative to outstanding bills and the bad faith shown on a number of
things. The utility billing had never been utilized for such a purpose before
and she wondered what flood gates would be opened in approving such a request. ,
There would be a number of other unhappy groups in the City and further, Mr.
Parkson was a resident of Buena Park. The other groups had done many things
on their own and worked very hard, and they did not owe the City any money and
had never requested special privileges.
Councilman Bay stated, without prejudice to the request, Mr. t~arkson's group
did tend to avoid bringing their request through the proper channels, that
being first the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department and/or
Park and Recreation Commission and then to the City Council. Requests of the
subject type which affected Depar~ment policies and possibly precedents had a
tendency to shy him away from trying to support them. If they went through
proper channels with proper staff information provided he might be able to
give support. '
Councilman Overholt agreed with Councilman Bay's comments; Councilman Roth stated
they were a tenacious group trying to get along and he did not think they were
going to get along very well and thus, would have to go through the bureaucratic
red tape.
Councilman Overholt noted, however, that policies were established and everyone
else was abiding by those policies. If there was a reason to waive the policy
with respect to one group, then there should be a good reason.
After a further brief discussion, no action was taken relative to the request
of the Anaheim Community Entertainers.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Executive Session.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:26 P.M.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion.
Adjourned: 6:27 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK