1980/10/0780-1272
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
FIRE CHIEF: Bob Simpson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Gerry Schiller, Mel~dyland Hotline Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION: Mr. Joe Kuhn, Orange County Solar Energy Coalition, read
a resolution which co~ended the City for its energy conservation activities.
Mrs. Bea Staley, Conservation Services Manager, accepted the commendation on
behalf of the City.
119/150: PRESENTATION: Mr. Jerry Grosso, President of the Anaheim Board of
Realtors, along with Mr. Jim Orr and Mrs. Pat Jones, presented the City with
a check for $1,500--$500 for a flag pole for the Senior Citizens Center and
$1000 for equipment for Julianna Park. Mayor Seymour accepted the donation and
expressed his appreciation and thanks on behalf of the Council and the City.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and
authorized by the City Council:
Postal Consumer Protection Week - October 6 to 11, 1980
Mr. Bill Kruse accepted the proclamation.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood 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 Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,434,796.71, in accordance
with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
80-1273
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
153: PAY FOR PART-TIME SUPERVISORS REPRESENTED BY HOSPITAL AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES
UNION, LOCAL NO. 399: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-448 for
adoption, am recommended in memorandum dated October 1, 1980 from Human Resources
Director Garry McRae, amending the Memorandum of Understanding with-the Hospital
and Service Employees' Union, Local No. 399, adopted by Resolution No. 80R-108,
by a Letter of Understanding dated September 25, 1980, to provide fifty cents
per hour premium pay to supervisors assigned responsibility over leadworkers,
effective October 13, 1980. Refer' to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-448: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND HOSPITAL
AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION, LOCAL NO. 399 ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 80R-108.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-448 duly passed and adopted.
153: TWO NEW CLASSIFICATIONS FOR CETA YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM: Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-449 for adoption, as recommended in memoran-
dum dated October 1, 1980 from the Human Resources Director, amending Resolution
No. 79R-593, establishing new classifications of CETA Youth Worker I and II and
rates of compensation therefor, effective September 26, 1980. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-449: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-593 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UN-
REPRESENTED JOB CLASSES AND CREATING TWO NEW JOB CLASSIFICATIONS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-449 duly passed and adopted.
153: EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR CETA YOUTH WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM EMPLOYEES:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-450 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated October 1, 1980 from the Human Resources Director, adopting
employment benefits for grant-funded CETA Youth Work Experience Program employees,
effective September 26, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-450: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ADOPTING EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR GRANT FUNDED CETA YOUTH WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM
EMPLOYEES.
80-1274
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
0verholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-450 duly passed and adopted.
150/109: APPLICATION SUBMITTAL FOR SB174 NEEDS BASIS GRANT FOR PEARSON PARK
THEATRE ACCESS/WALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No.
80R-451 for adoption, as recommended in mem~randu~ dated September 30, 1980
from Deputy City Manager James Ruth, approving the application for grant funds
in the amount of $25,600 under the Roberti-Z'berg Urban Open-Space and Recrea-
tion Program (SB174) for access/walkway improvements to the Pearson Park Theatre.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-451: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG URBAN OPEN-
SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM, PEARSON PARK THEATRE ACCESS/WALKWAY IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-451 duly passed and adopted.
150: SALE OF DIRECTORY OF HUMAN SERVICES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, the sale of the Directory of Human Services
was authorized and the revenue generated therefrom wam appropriated into Program
01-344, am recommended in memorandum dated September 29, 1980 from the Deputy
City Manager. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood commended the people who put the Directory together.
considered it to be an important document.
She
139: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT APPROVING THE CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980--
PROPOSITION I: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-452 for adoption,
as recommended in memorandum dated September 29, 1980 from the Deputy City Manager,
supporting Proposition I, the California Parklands Act of 1980, which will pro-
vide funding for the acquisition and development of parks and recreation facili-
ties and programs. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-452: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
SUPPORTING~MROPOSITION I, THE CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980, WHICH WILL PRO-
VIDE FUNDING FOR THE ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION FACILI-
TIES AND PROGRAMS.
80-1275
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-452 duly passed and adopted.
104/123: AWARD OF CONTRACT - STREET LIGHT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-2 (TRACT
NO. 1859): Account Nos. 24-676-6329-11120-37300 and 25-676-6329-11120-37300.
Councilman Overholt of~fered Resolution No. 80R-453 for adoption, awarding a
contract, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated September 30,
1980. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-453: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A ~ONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-2, TRACT NO.
1859, ACCOUNT NOS. 25-676-6329-11120-37300 & 24-676-6329-11120-37300. (Smith
Electric Supply, $34,850)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-453 duly passed and adopted.
123: ELECTRICAL/ENGINEERING SERVICE FOR THE POLICE STATION LOBBY IMPROVEMENT:
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an agreement with Donald M. Brown,
Architect, in the amount of $2,400 for design services relating to the
expansion of the Police Station main lobby, as recommended in memorandum dated
September 25, 1980 from Chief of Police George Tielsch. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
123: DESIGN SERVICES FOR ADDITION TO FIRE STATION NO. 6: Councilwoman Kaywood
moved to authorize an agreement with F. Earl Mellott, AIA, Architect, in the
amount of $2,900, for design services relating to the addition to Fire Station
No. 6 located at 1330 South Euclid Avenue, as recommended in memorandum dated
September 15, 1980 from Fire Chief Bob Simpson. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
134/155: DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT AND EIR - SUBMITTAL TO THE STATE: Councilman
Overholt moved to direct the Community Development and Planning Department staffs
to submit the draft Housing Element and EIR to the State for preliminary review
prior to final preparation and processing of same, as recommended in joint mem-
orandum received October 1, 1980 from the Planning Department, Planning Division,
and the Community Development Department. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion for the purpose of discussion.
80-1276
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the way the accounting
was done on the subject Element, senior citizens houming, for instance, was not
included in it. Only new construction would count in the 400 units that they
felt was Anaheim's share. She was wondering how they could get that changed
so that the 100 senior citizen units could be counted.
Mr. Joel Fick, Asmistant Director for Planning, anmwered that he believed
Councilwoman Kaywood was speaking to the SCAG forecast with respect to the low
and moderate income units. The senior citizens units that they would be building
would be counted towards the City's fair share allocation. They were asking
that the preliminary documents be sent to the State so that they could in-
corporate any comments into their final draft document. At that time, they
would be coming back and holding a public hearing before the Planning Commission
and the City Council and subsequently recommendations would be submitted to the
Council.
Councilman Bay stated he was concerned when he read statements that the, "locality
expresses a commi~nent to act in accordance with the standards that they provide."
He understood that to mean that they were, in effect, making a commitment to act
in accordance with those standards. He wanted to know how much of a commitment
they were making at this time. He read the statement over and over that, "most
of the used and new for sale housing in Anaheim is beyond the means of renter,
lower income households." He did not think that home ownership had ever been
within the means of some lower income households. He reiterated he wanted to
know how much they were committing to at the preliminary stage, or were they
committing to nothing until after the public hearing.
Mr. Fick answered that, in his opinion, the City was not committing to anything
at all at this time. The State under AB2853 had no authority to disapprove the
City's Housing Element, but they did have the authority to consider the City's
funding with respect to houming programs. At this point, the City was making
commitments. The Housing Element design itself was intended to be a policy
document of the City, and they were not looking to be tied down to specific
programs.
Councilman Bay stated that on a preliminary review by the State when they did
have such statements in the Housing Element am previously articulated, to him
it strongly implied a commitment. Things he had to know and hear before he
would put any stamp of approval or implied approval on the Housing Element
were--how much was mandatory, how much was voluntary, and how far they were
going to go with that. If that was not included am a commitment at this time,
real or implied, then he could vote to send the Element for a preliminary review.
Otherwise, he was not in a position to vote favorably.
Mr. Fick explained that the Planning Commission did share the same concern and
intended to work on clarifying it through the public hearing process relative
to exact definitions and terminology.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, clarified that
while the purpose of the public hearing was to clarify the language, he did not
want the draft to be submitted with the thought that everything was totally "up
in the air." If after the public hearing that would be changed, then clearly
they would have reflected a different direction. Where it said intent, it did
mean intent. Everything was not open-ended in the Element.
80-1277
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay suggested that they perhaps discuss what was closed and open
before they voted. If they were going to vote to send the draft as a prelim-
inary Housing Element, he wanted to know what those were so that he could make
his decision.
Mr. Priest explained, in that perspective, there was no issue in the Element
that would be foreclosed. The point he was seeking to make was that the words
contained therein, at least from a draft standpoint, were the words being rec-
ommended for their consideration, not something to fill up space.
Mayor Seymour interjected and stated that the consideration of the document could
theoretically change subsequent to the public hearing; Mr. Priest agreed.
Councilman Bay stated as long as that was understood, he did not have any prob-
lem.
Mayor Seymour stated they had all been assured that their action today, if they
chose to act favorably upon the recommendation, would send the Element to the
State as a draft. That action, however, would not preclude an opportunity in
the public hearing process to reverse anything contained in the report. His
recommendation was that they move ahead and send it to the State and raise all
those valid questions in the public hearing process.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
123: PARTICIPATION IN THE HUD/USC INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM--
KATHERINE L. ADAMS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an agreement
with Katherine L. Adams, Community Development Specialist, and the Department
of Housing and Urban Development for participation in the HUD/USC Intergovern-
mental Management Program and to authorize an agreement with Katherine L.
Adams for consideration as a participant in said Program, as recommended
in memorandum received October 1, 1980 from the Community Development Depart-
ment. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood congratulated Mrs. Adams on the
honor of being chosen a participant in the program, one of 25 participants from
a field of 1000 applicants.
Mayor Seymour also offered his congratulations. It was a unique honor and
distinction and he looked forward to Mrs. Adams' early return and implementa-
tion of the education she would gain.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
129: PROGRAM TO CURTAIL THE USE OF ILLEGAL FIREWORKS: Continued from the meeting
of September 16, 1980--see minutes that date. City Clerk Linda Roberts announced
that a Cynthia Adams and Renee Phillips were present to speak to the issue.
Mrs. Cynthia Adams, 10891 Magnolia, stated that she had never been so frustrated
about any other subject. They had taken many avenues in trying to talk to parents,
children and the police, but no action had been taken. As examples, her neighbor
80-1278
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES .- October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
was watching kids throwing illegal fireworks in the street and the neighbor
said he would rather have them do that than smoke pot. Another incident
occurred where she saw teenagers throwing firecrackers at little children.
She was shocked to find there was an off-duty police officer who observed the
situation and did nothing about it. The police did encourage the citizen to
make a complaint. On one occasion, her husband did so, but when the officer
came out, he indicated the situation was a normal one. However, he did not
want to talk to the children who were still in the street. Her husband had
to press the point with the officer who finally decided to approach them. In
the area of her apartment, firecrackers and fireworks were being shot off until
all hours of the night. It started at the beginning of June and was continuing
even now into October. She did not feel that parents and police would change
their attitude unless laws were made stricter, as well an awareness as to what
was taking place.
Mayor Seymour asked Mrs. Adams if she was familiar with the recommendation for
curtailing the use of illegal fireworks outlined in report dated October 1, 1980
from the Fire Department, which report spoke to the enforcement of ordinances
now on the books; Mrs. Adams answered "no". The City Clerk thereupon supplied
her with a copy of the report.
The Mayor continued that the report outlined a comprehensive program recognizing
that heretofore, although they had such ordinances, they had been difficult to
enforce and such enforcement might not have been as strong as necessary. What
Mrs. Adams reported was a prime example. The recommendation before the Council
today would, in his opinion, go a long way toward insuring that the type of
incident she reported might not happen again.
Mrs. Adams stated that she hoped something was done very soon because she would
hate to go through the same next year.
Mrs. Renee Phillips, 104 South Royal Place, stated that many incidents did occur
from the last part of May until just last week. She called the police and asked
for clarification of the law. She was told that the firecrackers could be set
off the day before, day of, and day after the holiday. She talked to someone
in the City who told her that firecrackers were illegal. If the police were
called to come out and do something about the situation and they did not show
or were not going to enforce the law, then certainly parents would not do any-
thing~ She knew of one County who made it a felony to have firecrackers instead
of a misdemeanor. Perhaps such a change would leave more of an impression. The
police did not want to take the firecrackers from the children or talk to the
parents because they felt those things happened as a matter of course. Under
those circumstances, the problem would continue.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the program to curtail the use
of illegal fireworks, which program was outlined in report dated October 1, 1980
from the Fire Department, Page 2. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour read the provisions of the proposed pro-
gram which he considered to be a step in the direction that both Mrs. Adams,
Phillips and many of the signers of the petitions presented by Dawn Johnson at
the meeting of September 16, 1980 had been pleading--that the Council take
stronger action.
80-1279
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if in the proposed program to take effect April 1,
198I, such incidents as those just reported where the detonation of fireworks
was still continuing, whether legal or illegal, how would the Fire Department
handle those at this time,?
Fire Chief. Bob Simpson first stated that they were not aware there was a contin-
uing problem. Those incidents were isolated cases that could be handled. The
reason they suggested beginning the campaign about April 1 was because if they
began it any earlier, it would become "old hat" by the time the season rolled
around. They would be happy to deal with any isolated occurrences that were
continuing and they would be dealt with at this time. A person need only to
call the Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau, and they would be more than
happy to look into the matter.
Councilman Overholt stated the evidence that was presented when the matter was
first broached on September 16, 1980 (see minutes that date) indicated the
problem involved illegal fireworks and not the safe and sane. He would be hope-
ful that charities who profited from the sale of safe and sane fireworks, as well
as the fireworks industry who manufactured those fireworks, would share the
concern and promote the reduction, if not the elimination, of the use of illegal
fireworks in Anaheim. He considered it a community responsibility because
ultimately, if it did not work and the problem could not be solved, the obvious
solution was to ban fireworks in Anaheim, and he did not think they wanted to
do that with regard to the safe and sane fireworks.
Chief Simpson stated one of the major problems was the distinction between the
two because people did notoften know the difference. They did intend to
approach the fireworks industry and ask for their support in putting forth
their programs. He noted that one of the speakers stated that someone told
her firecrackers were legal at certain times. He emphasized that no explosive
device was legal.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification that if someone was setting off
fireworks now, even the safe and sane, that should not be taking place in September
and October and thus, they would be illegal.
Chief Simpson stated that was absolutely correct.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
167/174: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND INTERCONNECT~ CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA - FAU PRO-
JECT M-3041(74): Account No. 01-795-6325-E5070--staff recommendation contained
in report dated September 22, 1980 was that the contract be awarded to Steiny &
Company, the lowest and best bidder, in the amount of $596,400. The proposed
award was contested by Electrend, Inc. at the meeting of September 30, 1980
(see minutes that date) and award continued to October 7, 1980. Staff requested
a further continuance of one week as outlined in report dated October 3, 1980
from the City Engineer.
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, award of contract
on the subject project was continued to October 14, 1980. Councilman Roth was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
80-1280
C~.ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
131: REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF COMPLETION OF LANDSCAPING ALONG THE ROUTE 57
FREEWAY: Letter dated September 17, 1980 from the City of Brea, Mayor Don
Fox, requesting such support, was submitted.
Mayor Seymour stated he had been contacted by the City of Brea and Mayor Don
Fox asking that he join with him, as well as Mayors representing a number of
other cities, to urge a completion of the landscaping along the Route 57 Free-
way. He offered his total support to such a project knowing that the Council's
feeling heretofore was (1) that sound barriers first be installed and (2) to
follow on with the landscaping. Before them now was a resolution urging
completion of the landscaping.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-454 for adoption, supporting the
completion of landscaping along the Route 57 Freeway. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-454: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ENDORSING LANDSCAPING FOR ORANGE FREEWAY.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay recalled the history of the efforts in
which he was involved to have the sound barriers installed which effort started
in 1975. The subject of landscaping was discussed, but knowing that the high
priority was first to have the sound walls installed, they did not take action
on the landscaping. He was wholeheartedly in support of the proposed resolu-
tion.
Councilwoman Kaywood also recalled that it was a long, hard battle which she
fought through SCAG and other areas until they finally got sound barriers.
They had been promised both the barriers and the landscaping, but the shortage
of gasoline cut tax money way back. When they were given a choice as to which
they wanted, there was no question but that safety had to come first. She
had never given up on the landscaping, but if they were told that there was
so much money and they now had a choice of completing the Costa Mesa Freeway
or the Route 57 landscaping, they needed to keep those choices in mind. How-
ever, she had a very high priority to get the landscaping installed.
Mayor Seymour conceded that the question of priorities was an important one.
The total cost of landscaping the 57 Freeway from its southerly terminus to
the northerly County Line was in the vicinity of $3 million. Although that
was not a small amount, compared to the cost of completing the 50 Freeway and
creating a north-south corridor, etc., it was rather insignificant. What was
going to be necessary was (1) that they convey to the Orange County Transpor-
tation Commission who, in turn, made recommendations to Caltrans, their feelings
along with those of neighboring cities of how strongly they felt. In his opinion,
he believed they would recognize the need for the landscaping and thus not come
back and say, if they wanted this, they would have to take away that. The land-
scaping should be able to be accomplished without having to set back any other
priorities they had in mind.
vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
80-1281
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-454 duly passed and adopted.
105: ANAHEIM YOUTH OF THE YEAR AWARD: Councilman Bay stated he assumed that
the $480 for the cost of the project as stated in memorandum dated September
24, 1980 from the Youth Commission would be allocated from the Council
Contingency Fund unless there was a budget for it.
Miss Beth Fujishige, Youth Services Chairman, explained they were just requesting
the Council's formal endorsement of the project. They were going to be making
presentations before dSfferent service organizations throughout Anaheim asking
them for their financial support.
Mayor Seymour, on behalf of the Council, commended Miss Fujishige and the
Youth Commission for conceiving the "Anaheim Youth of the Year Award" idea.
He was certain the Council would be willing to assist in any way.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was an excellent idea and she was pleased they
were going ahead with the project.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the Council
endorsed the "Anaheim Youth of the Year" award as proposed by the Youth
Commission. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
175: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY AGREEMENT APPROVED SEPTEMBER 30,
1980: Mayor Seymour noted that the Council last week acted to approve the subject
agreement. He was not present at that meeting and had a concern relative to that
action. He understood that the Authority would have the power to make recommen-
dations to the Council for investment in generation projects and/or projects
that may have something to do with generation of electricity and, therefore, the
Council would be empowered to make the final decision relative to the commitment
of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollar~ on a long-term basis on
behalf of the citizens without technically having to go to them for approval.
Historically, to his recollection, the present Council, nor previous Councils
had ever done that. His concern was that the Council remain consistent in that
policy of going to the electorate prior to making a final decision. He was
looking for a way to insure that activity took place and that there was no
possibility that the present or future Councils could do an "end run" on the
constituents and burden them with a 30-year mortgage without first asking for
their approval. He wanted the City Attorney to draw somthing up that would
preclude such an occurrence whether-it be in the form of a Charter Amendment
or some form of amendment to the agreement with the Joint Powers Authority, or
whether it could be accomplished in a written Council Policy. He was looking
to the Council for an expression as to how they felt about that, and then they
could direct the City Attorney to come back with some alternatives.
Councilman Overholt explained that he could not remember a time since he sat
on the Council when they felt under such great pressure as last Tuesday, and
Councilman Roth, to point where he voted against the issue. The majority
80-1282
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
of the deliberation (see minutes September 30, 1980) was whether they could
continue the matter to this week for full Council action. He shared the Mayor's
view and he felt the remaining Council Members did as well. At this time, how-
ever, he wanted the Mayor to state his position on the action the Council took
in approving the agreement last week so that his position would be firm. No one
wanted to take the responsibility of saying where the Mayor stood. After the
Mayor stated his position, he (Overholt), would join in his present request.
Mayor Seymour stated clearly, the Public Power Authority could, in fact, be a
very positive force in insuring lower electrical rates through the pursuit
of generation of electricity in the future. In that regard, he was totally
supportive; however, any time that a small body, a closed group, could make
a decision to mortgage the future lives of their constituents, he considered
that inappropriate. He reiterated, he totally supported the action the Council
took last week as long they placed the "handcuffs" on themselves as well as,
if possible, future Councils relative to taking an action without the approval
of the voters. He would be opposed to providing an opportunity for an elected
or non-elected body to rob them of their right of expression at the polls.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to direct the City Attorney to research and
draw up alternate proposals to seek the protections articulated to insure
that 'the power to decide any long-term commitment of finance regarding genera-
tion was left in the hands of the citizens of Anaheim. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated as far as tying up future
Councils, if past Councils had done so and could do it legally, they or any
Council could find themselves in a position where they would be unable to
make decisions that would be extremely helpful to all citizens. She felt
unless they retained flexibility, poor decisions would be made, and not
good ones. People always had the right at the ballot box to recall, remove,
elect or not elect the people they chose to. She felt that was where the power
must lie.
Mayor Seymour stated that a very basic principle was involved. In his mind,
there could be no expedient reasons offered to take away the right or deprive
the constituency from speaking or voting on how they felt about long-term
commitments made in the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he was going to set a sum as a minimum or maximum,
or was he saying, if something came along in which Anaheim could participate
which offered a savings' of perhaps $5 million, 'would they also have to go to
a vote even though there were time constraints and there was a possibility
they would lose out? On Proposition "A", which the Mayor had on the ballot,
that would eliminate the City's April elections in even years, so that they
would only have June and November in even years.
Mayor Seymour answered "yes", or a special election.
The Mayor felt that they would have the opportunity for an election twice a year,
each and every year when they could go to the electorate. He did not think they
needed anything more flexible than that.
80-1283
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that they had to have at least 90 days before being
able to place an issue on the ballot. If they were talking in terms of any
sum of money, even a small sum that would reap immediate dividends in lower
utility rates to the citizens, she felt there was a double edge to the sword,
and they would need to look at that as well.
Mayor Seymour stated with the City Attorney's research and alternatives to
achieve the objective outlined, they would have the opportunity to discuss and
debate what would be reasonable. What he was concerned about was causing an
action unilaterally without the expression of the people and burdening them
with a long-term debt. He wouYd not be opposed to short-term expenditures of
funds that would be in the best interest of lower electrical rates.
Councilman Bay asked the City Attorney when he was researching the alternatives
one thing he would like the Council to consider, where they already had a vote
on the $150 million of electrical bonds voted on some years ago, which bond money
still existed, and also under IPP which had recently been voted on by the electic,
those matters had already been covered. He asked that the same restrictions not
apply in those cases. Otherwise, he was certainly supportive of the basic prin-
ciple articulated by the Mayor.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that he would come up with some proposals for the
Council to review.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
107/179: REQUEST FROM ORANGE TREE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION RELATIVE TO MOBILE-
HOME PARKS: Request of Ms. Pat Kish, Chairman, for permanent zoning for mobile-
home parks and an ordinance providing first rights of refusal when a mobilehome
park is sold, was submitted.
Ms. Pat Kish, Chairman of the Orange Tree Homeowner's Association, 1400 South
Douglass Road, Space 94, stated that she and several members of their Board
of Directors had the opportunity to meet with the Mayor, .Councilwoman Kaywood
and Councilman Overholt previously and thus, they were aware of their two
requests, (1) permanent zoning for mobilehome parks within the City of Anaheim
and (2) an ordinance to provide mobilehome residents in Anaheim a first right
of refusal in the event of sale of a mobilehome park. State law did not offer
mobilehome owners very much, or any protection at all. The only thing required
of a park owner was to file a 12-month notification to the homeowners that he
had an intention of appearing before City government to request a change of
use which, in most cases, was easily obtained. Consequently, the homeowner
within that park was left with nowhere to go and no parks would accept the
mobiiehomes to be relocated. They had a sizeable investment in their homes,
accessory structures and landscaping involving thousands of dollars.
Relative to their second request, when a park was sold, the homeowners had no
opportunity to participate in the purchase. The next thing, the new park
owners would take over and usually an excessive rent increase followed along
with a change in park rules and so forth. They felt that some protection
would be afforded to them by providing them an opportunity of first right
of refusal.
80-1284
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, ~:30 P.M.
Ms. Kish maintained that the City Attorney in him comments was under the im-
pression that State law preempted any local law they might institute. In
fact, State law did not provide them with any protection. She thereupon quoted
a section of that law to illustrate her point. She reiterated, existing State
law in reference to a change of use, did not give homeowners any protection.
It was her understanding that it was possible for a City or County government
to go far and beyond State law. She believed in this case that would be true
and it happened in the City of San Juan Capistrano where the people did have
the option of first right to purchase the park in the event it were sold.
They did not expect preferential treatment or a reduced price, just the op-
portunity to protect their investment and the first opportunity to purchase
the park at the same price that would be offered to any other interested party.
Approving the two requests would be a step in the right direction of main-
taining the City's existing housing stock.
Mayor Seymour first asked for clarification that Ms. Kish was talking about
the land underlying the homes; Ms. Kish answered "yes".
The Mayor continued that this was not the first time that at least a majority
of the Council had heard the issue, and before continuing further, he wanted
to know if any other members of Ms. Kish's group wished to speak; Ms. Kish
stated they left the presentation up to her.
Mayor Seymour noted that a Mr. 0britz and a number of people from Lincoln-
Beach Mobilehome Park were present relative to another issue, and they would
be heard later in the meeting. He assumed, however, that their feelings were
similar to the ones offered by Ms. Kish.
Councilman 0verholt asked the City Attorney to respond to Ms. Kish's comments
on the second request.
City Attorney William Hopkins reported that the State passed legislation starting
with the California Civil Code which dealt with mobilehome regulations. They
felt that any City ordinance would be preempted by that legislation with
regard to the mobilehome itself. With respect to the land undeclying it, it
would be impairing the owners right to sell his property as he chose. If there
was such an ordinance in some other City, they would want to see what the court
had to say about it. His office would make a further investigation of the
matter.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated as she understood the request, if an owner wanted
to sell and for that same price the mobilehome owners were given the right
to purchase it, that would not preclude the owner from selling at the price
he was asking.
City Attorney Hopkins stated, however, that while an owner might wish to sell
to his brother, father, or family member, he may not want to sell to a stranger.
There might be other reasons and he felt it would be impairing a person's right
to deal with his property as he chose to. They would research the ordinance
that had been referred to, to see if there was a court test of it.
Councilman 0verholt asked Ms. Kish if there were municipalities, to her knowl-
edge, who had such an ordinance relative to first right of refusal; Ms. Kish
80-1285
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
answered, to her knowledge, San Juan Capistrano was the only municipality that
had such an ordinance. Relative to anywhere else in the State, she preferred
not to comment so as not to mislead the Council. She knew there were things
in the mill, but she did not know that they had been passed.
Mayor Seymour asked for clarification that, to her knowledge, San Juan
Capistrano was the only City that had such an ordinance; Ms. Kish answered,
that was correct. She continued that at the County level, one of the Super-
visors had directed County Counsel to come up with some wording to do exactly
the same type of thing. She thereupon read an excerpt from the San Juan
Capistrano ordinance for informational purposes, noting that the ordinanc~ had
been in effect since approximately November 1979, but it had not yet been
challenged.
Councilman Overholt asked if it had been used; Ms. Kish answered that there was
no reason for it to be used because obviously park owners were choosing to
retain ownership.. She reiterated it had not been challenged.
Councilman Overholt stated he imagined the first time it would be challenged
was on an attempt to use it.
Ms. Kish then confirmed for Councilman Bay that she did not know of any mobile-
home parks that had the first right of refusal clause in the contract with the
mobilehome owner.
Councilman Overholt, in order to clarify his concern, noted that if the San
Juan Capistrano ordinance had not been used, the fact that it had not been
challenged did not mean that it may be challengeable. That was why he was
very interested in what the City Attorney had to say as to whether they were
empowered to pass such an ordinance, not the merits of whether or not it
should be done. Until they answered that question, he was not prepared to
deal with the merits.
Ms. Kish was of the opinion that any ordinance a City enacted was challengeable.
Mayor Seymour stated, to clarify Councilman Overholt's concern, which was also
his, obviously a City could pass any ordinance it wished. Whether or not that
ordinance would stand up legally in court was another question. His concern
was, by the creation of such an ordinance, were they likely to lead the City
into a very costly court battle to defend it in the future. He felt there
was a total alignment of the Council relative to the problems that mobilehome
owners faced, but they were hearing an expression of cautiousness before
rushing into adopting an ordinance without properly looking at the pros and
cons of adoption, as opposed to a potential lawsuit and taxpayers' expense
attached thereto. While they were all sensitive to the request, they did
not want to be too quick to act.
Ms. Kish stated she was depending on the sensitivity and knowledge of the problem.
With the communications she and the Mayor had over the past two years, she doubted
this would be rushing into something.
Mayor Seymour stated they were all aware of the problem and need to do something.
He questioned to what degree had she or anybody else truly researched the legal
aspects of the creation of an ordinance relative to the question of first right
of refusal. He did not know of such research.
80-1286
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 77 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to direct the City Attorney and
Planning Department to respond to the two aforementioned requests presented
by Ms. Kish and subsequently that a report be submitted offering various
alternatives and, prior to any final action, that there be a joint meeting
with Planning Commission. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Council-
man Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 20 minutes. (3:15 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, with the exception of Councilman Roth. (3:35 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-3, VARIANCE NO. 3161 (READVERTISED),
(TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11178) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Ebrahim
Talebi, et al, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, to construct
a 1-lot, 30-unit condominium subdivision on property located at 715 South
Webster Avenue with Code waivers, was submitted.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-132, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an envi-
ronmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environ-
mental Quality Act, since there would be no significant individual or cumul-
ative adverse environmental impact due to thim project and further approved
Reclassification No. 80-81-3. Pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-t33, the City
Planning Commission granted Variance No. 3161.
A review of the subject reclasmification and variance was requested by Council-
man Bay at the meeting of September 16, 1980 and public hearing scheduled this
dated. Letter received October 6, 1980 from the applicant requested a con-
tinuation of the hearing for one week to October 14, 1980, 3:00 P.M.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a gentleman was present to speak on
the matter. She also explained for the Mayor that the applicant did not give
a reason for the requested continuance in him letter, but as she understood,
from a verbal conversation, the applicant was out of town.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak.
Mr. Tyson Clark, 2500 West Lorena, stated this was the third time he was present
to hear the matter, the others being before the Planning Commission. The
petitioner first planned to build 20 condominiums, then changed to apartments
with underground parking. The plan was now for 30 condominiums with parking
backing up to his back fence. He felt the noise that would be generated and the
way the pKoposed project was situated and the change in the parking would be
an invasion of him privacy. He was also concerned about the continuance
because he had to take off work every time he attended the meetings.
Councilman Bay noted that most of the time when they received requests for con-
tinuances, particularly from developers, such requests came in am late as the
Monday before the Tuemday meeting. He suggested that Mr. Clark call the City
Clerk's office late Monday afternoon to find if a request for continuance had
been received. That would preclude him coming to the meeting only to find out
that no hearing was going to be taking place.
80-1287
Cit.y Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour explained it had been the policy of the Council to grant a rea-
sonable request for continuance either from the developer or homeowners.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked for clarification as to the street Mr. Clark
lived on and also if he had seen the plan and if he could tell how many units
were going to be next to his house.
Mr. Clark stated his home was on Lorena Drive and that the project was at the
back of his lot. He had seen the plans three times, but they kept changing,
the last being 30 units with parking up to his fence.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, public
hearing on the subject reclassification and variance was continued to October 14,
1980, 3:00 P.M., as requested by the applicant. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mayor Seymour confirmed for Mr. Clark that the Council granted the continuance
for one week and that the hearing would begin at approximately 3:00 p.m. next
Tuesday. He also encouraged him to call as Councilman Bay suggested.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that Mr. Clark write a letter to the Council
as to his opposition so that it would become a part of the record; Mayor Seymour
suggested either that, or his comments at the public hearing would become public
record as well.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2103: Application by Richard S.
and Elsie Mackensen, to retain an adult book store on CG zoned property located
at 314 East Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-142, reported
that the Planning Director had determined that the proposed activity falls
within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim guide-
lines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR and further, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2103.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Donald Marshall,
Agent, and public hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, described the location
and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report
which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Stanley Zimmerman, attorney, Law Offices of Joseph Rhine, 5504 Hollywood
Boulevard, Suite 400, Hollywood 90028, stated he was present on behalf of the
petitioner. As the Council had been told, the Planning Commission refused to
consider the particular merits of the petitioner's case on grounds which he would
say were essentially jurisdictional. They read the Code as barring them from
considering the granting of a CUP. He was appearing before the Council to ask
that either by means of hearing the facts concerning the particular case with
respect to.the granting of a CUP, or by some other means, such as a variance or
80-1288
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
exception, that the petitioner be allowed to present the facts of his case to
somebody in the Anaheim City government. The petitioner had been in business
for over 10 years as the sole adult book store operator in the City. There
had been no problems in connection with the book store of any sort. The
operator had good relations with local law enforcement officers. No problems
or complaints had been received about the way the business was conducted, as
opposed to the existence of the business about which there had been complaints
he presumed.
In November of 1979 when the Council passed an ordinance, that ordinance ruled
him (Marshall) out of business. What he had been endeavoring to do was to try
and persuade the City of Anaheim to give some consideration to the case. In
fact, in a judicial proceeding related to the matter, the court referred the
matter back to the City for that purpose. He had not even reached that point
yet. He could not get a hearing on a CUP, on a variance, or anything relating
to the case. They had tried several ways, formally and informally. It seemed
to him there were two points worth pursuing by both formal and informal means:
(1) does the conduct of his particular business contribute in any way to the
conditions that gave rise to the necessity of the ordinance? The necessity
was based on findings of fact about the nature of adult entertainment estab-
lishments in the City, and it was not at ail clear that those findings of fact
applied in any way to a person who had been in business in the City and had
a good reputation and good relations with local officials. There should be
a place for him to discuss those with somebody who had jurisdiction.
(2) If he cannot do business there, what alternatives do exist for his contin-
uing his business in Anaheim, or was that out?
The petitioner wrote recently after the Planning Commission meeting and broached
the possibilities of his continuing his business in Anaheim. He reiterated, he
should be given some kSnd of regard and consideration. It was a planning
program and he did not even know what geographic areas he could possibly con-
sider to relocate in. They were throwing themselves at the Council saying
that there must be some place where they could get some consideration of those
two points. He asked the Council to make some arrangements where the man could
be heard.
Mayor Seymour stated relative to point number one, requesting a full hearing,
that was the purpose today. He urged Mr. Zimmerman to take whatever time he
wanted and to make any~points he cared to. Now was his opportunity. As to
point number two, what consideration would be given to the fact that he had
been a ten-year businessman in the City, that again was the purpose of the
public hearing to either deny or grant a CUP. As to point number three, the
feeling that the ordinance adopted last year was onerous, he could only offer
in the event the Council was unwilling to change that ordinance, the alternative
was to seek retribution through the judicial system. He did not think that
point number three was a matter of discussion at this public hearing. What
they wanted to discuss were the merits and demerits of whether or not the CUP
should be granted. His personal opinion relative to, in essence, becoming a
real estate agent for his client in identifying an area where he could re-
locate, he did not see that as their responsibility. The ordinance clearly
stated that type of business required a CUP in order to be located. Obviously,
there must be considerable real estate available other than that located within
80-1289
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
1000 feet of another adult entertainment business, or within 500 feet of resi-
dential lots or 1000 feet of a church. It was not their responsibility to point
out that real estate. Again, relative to having a full public hearing, that
was the purpose today. They wanted to afford him every opportunity to express
whatever feelings he or the owner might have.
Mr. Zimmerman, speaking to the Mayor's second point first, stated in the ordinary
case of a zoning classification, there was a zoning map. Someone could come
in and look at it to see what areas were zoned for the kind of business in
which they wanted to engage. Nobody was interested in having the City act
as a real estate agent. This was not the case under this particular ordinance.
Under the ordinance, it was difficult to determine what was an adult entertain-
ment establishment or the definition of a church. The residential zoning
was clear, but some of the restrictions made it extremely difficult. He felt
the City should give some cooperation, not to find property, but just to let
him know about the unusual type of restrictions and give him some ability to
see where he could go.
Mayor Seymour encouraged him to confer with the City Attorney relative to the
definitions of a church, etc., so that he might more clearly understand.
Mr. Zimmerman stated he would like the Planning Office to do an inventory of
the area or else draw on a map the area left open to Mr. Marshall. That was
his request in connection with the second.
Mayor Seymour responded that although they might move that at another time,
he did not see how that was r'elevant.
Mr. Zimmerman answered that they were present today to ask for cooperation
and it would be the first sign of cooperation given to the operator. They
had asked other people in the City for that cooperation.
Relative to the first point, he would appreciate the opportunity to address
the question of whether or not the man should be granted a CUP, but first he
would like to know what standards were being used. The man was within the
limitations that had been discussed. The Planning Office had reported that
there were certain restrictions. If they were simply talking about whether or
not the man's business was within the church restriction, within the residential
restriction, and whether it was near another adult entertainment facility, then
he could make his speech very short because the answer to all those questions
was "yes". What he wanted to know was if there was any way in which the relevance
of the ordinance, as it was being applied to the business for the apparent
necessity of trying to keep deterioration from occurring in the City, the man
could put forth a case against any standard which would allow him a CUP, or
variance or anything else they wanted to call it. Was there any place he could
go to say, I have not had any trouble or caused deterioration.
Mayor Seymour interjected and stated this was not a court room, but a public
hearing to determine whether or not a CUP would be granted or denied. He
wished that Mr. Zimmerman would contain his remarks to that and not discuss
the merits or demerits of the ordinance or anything else.
80-1290
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Zimmerman countered that this, in fact, was not simply a decision on whether
a CUP would be denied. They had also asked for a variance. They were asking
for some procedure where the petitioner could have the merits of his case
discussed.
Mayor Seymour stated he thought he explained that the purpose of the public
hearing was to determine whether or not a CUP would be granted. They wanted
a forum in which to speak, they had it, and he asked that Mr. Zimmerman speak
to it.
Mr. Zimmerman asked if there was any basis for a CUP being granted to a person
in the pyhsical location of Mr. Marshall regardless of his other circumstances
and regardless of 'any other things. Was there any standard by which the Council
was prepared to consider the possibility that a CUP might be granted to him.?
Mayor Seymour stated he was present to argue the merits or demerits of the
issuance of the CUP, and he asked that Mr. Zimmerman make that argument.
Mr. Zimmerman answered that he was trying to find out if the question was moot.
In the previous proceeding, they were told there was no jurisdiction or discre-
tion to granting a CUP. There was no dispute and they acknowledged that the
man was located within the areas as articulated and the ordinance did say that
no CUP shall be granted. They were present at an appellate. He was trying to
find out if it was the same situation with the Council. If so, then there
was no point in talking about the other things.
The Mayor asked the City Attorney to explain the purpose of the hearing today
and what discretion they had in the matter.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that the Adult Entertainment Ordinance was
passed in November 1979, after consideration by the Council. It ~efines an
adult book store as one of the types of adult entertainment business and
indicated the establishment as having a substantial or significant portion of
its stock and trade in books and magazines, other periodicals and so forth.
It was his opinion that the subject book store did fall within that definition.
The ordinance also required that a CUP be granted for any such operation. How-
ever, it did provide that no such CUP will be granted if the business was within
500 feet of any lot zoned for a residential use, within 1000 feet of any educa-
tional institution utilized by minors, within 1000 feet of any lot upon which
a church was located or within 1000 feet of any lot upon which there was
another adult entertainment business. Under the circumstances, at the present
location, a CUP could not be granted pursuant to the ordinance.
Miss Santalahti explained that the subject businessman relocated a little over
1½ years ago. He was several doors down from his current business address. At
that time, zoning enforcement realized there had been a relocation. It was a
legal non-conforming use for approximately 10 years as stated. During that 10-
year period, however, the Zoning Code was amended to include a requirement for
a CUP if there was an age restricted use of 18 years of age or over for customers
or employees. Their first CUP was filed under that subsection about one year
ago. Subsequently, the new ordinance came into effect and clamped down even
more on the subject of adult uses and that was the format they were looking
80-1291
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
at today. Also, they did not have a zoning map for distribution, but they did
have the 100 scale map showing the zoning uses for the entire City. They would
occasionally hand out the General Plan Map because it was a good portrayal of
existing zoning in the City. Unfortunately, the zoning that was most likely
to involve a site that was not within 1000 feet of some uses and 500 feet of
residences was the industrial zone, and with all the meetings and discussion
they had on the subject of appropriate industrial uses, she had personally
tended to discourage anybody from filing an application in the industrial
zone. The most suitable land was one they were unlikely to gain approval on
for a totally different issue than an adult use, but rather the lack of the
industrial nature of the use.
Mayor Seymour asked if the Council had the power to approve the CUP.
City Attorney Hopkins answered for the subject location, the adult entertainment
ordinance provided that no conditional use permit shall be permitted by the
City for any adult business if it was within those locations. Under the cir-
cumstances, the City Council could not grant a CUP pursuant to the existing
ordinance for that location.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Zimmerman if that answered his questions.
Mr. Zimmerman answered if it was the decision of the Council that either by CUP
or by any other means, he would be interested in being instructed by the City
Attorney as to other powers of the Council that went beyond a CUP in such
circumstances. He believed that they asked the Planning Commission for more
than a CUP.
City Attorney Hopkins stated at this point, the hearing was to determine whether
a CUP would be.granted, and it was his opinion that it could not.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Zimmerman if he had anything further to add; Mr. Zimmerman
answered, "yes", because he thought they would be asking for a record of the pro-
ceeding. He was under the impression that the Code stated that an application
for a CUP may also be treated as an application for a variance. The papers
they submitted to the Zoning Division did ask for both a CUP and variance consi-
deration. Some place they seemed to have lost out on the variance consideration.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak to the matter; there was no
response. He thereupon closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-455 for adoption, denying CUP
No. 2103, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to
Resolution Book.
80-1292
City Ha.lip Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1960, !:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-455: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2103.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney to answer
the last question posed by Mr. Zimmerman.
City Attorney Hopkins explained there were requirements for a variance that
must be met, and the findings of the Planning Commission and of the City Council
and the. particular subject under consideration was a CUP. He did not believe
a variance would be allowable either. He had not studied the topography of
the land and other requirements of a variance and he did not know if Planning
had done so either. It would be his impression that it would not qualify for
a variance. Perhaps Planning had studied the ground conditions.
Councilman Overholt asked if the matter before them sought any other remedies
or relief other than a CUP, noting that he had already answered the question
on the variance.
The City Attorney stated there was a provision in the Adult Entertainment Code
providing for an extension in the case of undue hardship. In this case, the
particular business was moved from one location to another. That would be a
possible alternative of undue hardship for an extension of time on the existing
location.
Councilman Overholt stated that the matter before them today, however, did not
seek that relief; City Attorney Hopkins confirmed the situation was strictly
a CUP.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-455 duly passed and adopted.
107: LINCOLN-BEACH MOBILEHOME PARK: Mayor Seymour announced that Mr. Joseph
Obritz wished to speak on behalf of the Committee present in the Chamber
audience on the Lincoln-Beach Mobilehome Park.
Mr. Joe Obritz, 2925 West Lincoln Avenue, Lincoln-Beach Mobilehome Park, Space
85, stated that the Mayor, as well as the Council and City Attorney were aware
of the problems they had been suffering over the last several years. Unfor-
tunately, those problems had been pushed aside for many years and were now
becoming a reality. They were also sympathetic with the issues Ms. Kish
presented earlier.in the meeting and supported her 100%. That issue also
affected them, but in hindsight. Their park had been sold and those who became
residents in the past three months were not apprised of many of the situations
relative to the conditions of the park, other than what they saw with their
own eyes. Consequently, the park having been sold, those with the greater
investments would seem to be the ones to suffer tremendously with no return
80-1293
City Hal.l, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
on those investments. In addition, they had also been subjected to continuous
sliding and smells emanating from the ground. A great amount of air research
had taken place as far as the possibility of the toxic situation in, around
and under that property. Several of the people in the park had become ill
because of the smells, the noxious fumes and gases, including himself. He had
been in touch with Mr. Jim Stoler, a representative of the State in Air Quality
Control Division, which Division had performed extensive testing. The results
of their first preliminary tests had not as yet been made public. There were
approximately 60 widows in the park and 70% of the residents were senior citizens.
The park was continuously sinking with the possibility of resulting toxicity.
The time had come when something must be done. He was not being critical of
the Mayor or the City Council. The Mayor indicated he had been very concerned
about the situation, the developer indicated his concern, but thus far no one
had been so concerned that they would take a stand on the issue. They were
present in the Chamber enmasse to request that the Mayor and City Council do
one of three things as follows: (1) We demand that the Mayor and City Council
investigate the possibility of relocating them in a comparable space in or ad-
jacent to Anaheim; (2) We are demanding you formulate a programwhereby we may
be moved at no cost to the existing tenants of Lincoln-Beach Mobilehome Manor,
commonly known as "Sinking, Stinking, Lincoln;" and (3) Failing all else, as a
last resort, we want our coaches purchased at market value to permit us, in-
cluding the senior citizens who have nowhere to go, to start over.
Mr. Obritz continued that he felt those were small demands and that much con-
sideration and top priority should be given to those issues because the park
should never have been utilized for human liveability.
Mr. Guy Horn, 2925 West Lincoln Avenue, Space 13, stated that he moved to the
Lincoln-Beach Mobilehome park in June of 1970. At that time, it was a beautiful
park and there was no evidence of subsidence. He emphasized that mobilehome
people were not second grade, but first grade, citizens. He would be a cross-
section representing his age group in the park (he was 81 years old). The
underlying ground of the park was sinking to such a point that there was
nothing that could be done about it. If they tried to make it liveable, the
expense would be so great they would not be able to live there. They were
appealing for assistance. He felt they ought to have the Governor declare the
area a disaster area. In concluding, he emphasized they needed the help of
the Mayor and the Council.
Mr. Jamem Schuler, 2925 Wemt Lincoln Avenue, Space 15, mtated they had some
very unusual problems in the park. He had no doubts that the park itself could
no longer be used as a long range park. It was sinking, stinking, and it had
been neglected so long that it would cost a great deal of money to fix it so
that people could get out to go to work in the morning or to move out of the
park. There were holes 8 to 10 feet deep, if not deeper, and if there was a
substantial rain, more damages would result. The management had done nothing
about fixing driveways, roadways or anything. The Park management had intim-
idated the residents by telling them if they had to make those improvements,
their rents would have to be raised $50 to $100 and if they complained too
much, the City would condemn the park. He was also very concerned about some
of the things the management had said about them that no one should say. He
wanted the Council to know what they had been putting up with for years.
80-1294
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Walt Forsyth, 2731 West Brideport, whose mother was a resident of the Park,
stated that there were plans by the developer that were somewhere in the Plan-
ning Department at the moment. He did attend the meetings where the developer
explained his plans to the residents of the Park. His geological report, as he
recalled, indicated there was some 200 to 300 thousand cubic yards of material
that would have to be removed from the waste dump and backfilled before anything
could be done with the park. His plans called for a condominium development with
plans for relocating all of the people from the Park, but he did not know how
the specific plan was outlined. He urged the City Council to work with the devel-
oper to do what they could for the residents of the Park. It was a very emotional
issue.
Mayor Seymour stated the City had been well aware of the continuing problem
they had been faced with in that park and that the files pertaining to it were
extensive, documenting continuing inspections of the Park by the Fire and Building
Departments as the deterioration had taken place. One of the concerns was that
one day they might be faced with declaring it to be a health hazard for anybody
to live there, forcing a closure of the mobilehome park and automatically dis-
placing and dispossessing the residents. He had met personally with numbers
of groups individually, as well as with committees, most recently on Monday or
last Friday. At that particular meeting, a representative of the developer
was present expressing interest in converting the park to a condominium. The
initial figures for the cost of removing the waste and replacing it with clean
fill were also reported by the developer. He felt the cost might be somewhere
in the vicinity of $6 million to remove the waste and an additional $2½ million
to replace it with clean fill. Whether or not those figures were correct, he
did not know, but they intended to find out.
~he Mayor stated that on the one hand, (1) they were very concerned with the
fact that the day would come when they would have to declare the park a health
hazard, forcing displacement, and (2) they were equally concerned with any pro-
posed development that would take place which would again result in displacement
~ithout proper compensation and consideration for those living there. Relative
to Mr. Obritz's request which he understood to be--(1) investigate the location
of all the tenants living in the park; (2) investigate the possible movement
of those tenants at no cost; (3) investigate the possibility of purchasing the
coaches at market value, thereby permitting a new start. To his knowledge, all
three of those investigations were already under way.
The Mayor advised that the Council felt a strong moral responsibility to insure
they were not displaced; however, they were dealing with a very complex situation.
It was not easy and he would like to find a way they could continue a mobilehome
park on that property, but that might not be economically feasible. At the
same time, it would not be too long before the developer submitted his proposed
plans to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City Council, for the
conversion of the park to a condominium. In that process, they could be assured
that the Council would be extremely sensitive to displacement and cost of re-
location. He knew through the City Manager'm office, that staff was already
at work trying-to identify alternate sites within the City, if there were such
sites in which the residents might be accommodated. The bottom line was, yes,
they were very aware; it was a very complex situation with no easy solutions.
They had already taken action to insure that not only the investigation suggested
would take place, but also that they investigate all alternatives so as to come
80-1295
~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
up with some that would obviously not please everybody, but at least would insure,
particularly for senior citizens, that they were cared for properly, as well as
the younger tenants and that they be properly compensated. If today they were
looking for some specific answer, no one could give that. They could give their
assurance that they were vitally concerned with the future of that park and with
how to handle the problem of displacement and/or relocation.
The Mayor also wanted them to bring word back to the other residents in the
Park relative to the City's stand on the matter because of some of the stories
that had been spread. Last Friday, he was made aware that some mobilehome
broker was telling residents that the City was going to condemn the park and
therefore, he would offer them $5,000 for their coach for a quick sale. As soon
as the matter was brought to his (Seymour's) attention, he contacted the City
Attorney's office. One of the top priorities of the City was to try to
resolve the problem at the Park. If the residents would work with the City,
hopefully they could come up with a resolution of the problem to satisfy most
of their needs. They would pursue the investigations already under way. He
concluded that it would not be too long before they made a final decision
which he estimated to be within a matter of six months.
One other thing and something which he had already discussed with the Council,
he had been in touch with Congressman Jerry Patterson's office relative ~to a
possible HUD grant that would make available some funds for handling the prob-
lem. His offices had offered to work with Anaheim in any way possible in order
to provide some HUD funds to find a resolution to the problem. He thanked all
those in attendance for being present today and stated that they were going to
need their cooperation in resolving the matter as well.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Bay, 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 or allowed:
a. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone Company for property damages purpor-
tedly sustained as a result of work operations performed by employees of the
Henson Construction Company at the southwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and
Chartres Street (.redevelopment project) on or about August 2, 1980.
The following claim was allowed:
b. Claim submitted by Keith Bizzle for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of City employee (Luscious Smith) hitting claimant's parked vehicle
in the Convention Center lower parking lot on or about June 14, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of August 27, 1980.
b. 175: Public Utilities Department, Customer Service Division--Monthly Report
of August 1980.
80-1296
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
c. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Notice of Filing an Amendment
to Application No. 59929, Southern California Gas Company for a determination
that applicant acted reasonably in buying certain volumes of gas from Pacific
Interstate Transmission Company and to decrease revenues to offset changed gas
costs under its approved Purchased Gas Adjustments Procedures resulting from
adjustments in the price of natural gas purchased from Transwestern Pipeline
Company, E1 Paso Natural Gas Company, Pacific Interstate Transmission Company,
and Pacific Gas and Electric Company; and to adjust revenues under the Supply
Adjustment Mechanism to reflect greater than anticipated collection of revenues
due to increases in natural gas supplies.
d. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of September 17, 1980.
Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
158: DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-456
for adoption, accepting deeds of easement. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-456: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Van Horne,
Ltd.; June Girard, et al.; In-N-Out Burger, Inc.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-456 duly passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAPS - TRACT NO. 10585 AND 10586: Developer, Baywood Homes; pro-
perty is located on the west side of Anaheim Hills Road, south of Nohl Ranch
Road, containing a l-lot, 50-unit proposed RM-3000(SC) zoned condominium
subdivision; and property located between Anaheim Hills Road and Nohl Ranch
Road, south of Canyon Rim Road, containing a l-lot, 37-unit proposed RM-3000(SC)
zoned condominium subdivision.
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed
subdivisions, together with their design and improvement, were found to be
consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final
Map Tract No. 10585 and Final Map Tract No. 10586, as recommended by the City
Engineer in his memorandums dated October 1980. Councilman Roth was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 4167: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4167 for adop-
tion. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4167: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 4053, NUNC PRO TUNC, RELATING TO ZONING. (to correct a legal description,
77-78-63, CL)
80-1297
City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4167 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4168: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4168 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4168: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-12, RM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4168 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4169: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4169 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4169: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-35, ML)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOE~:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
0verholt, Kay-wood, Bay and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4169 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4170 THROUGH 4174: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos.
4170 through 4174, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4170: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.158 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING
THERETO SUBSECTION .050 RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (imposing parking
restrictions--no parking midnight to 6:00 A.M., Parkview Street, both sides
from Orange Avenue to Stonybrook Drive)
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4171: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RE-
LATING TO PARKING. (imposing no parking at any time, Avenida de Santiago,
both sides, from its westerly terminus to Hidden Canyon Road)
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4172: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SUB-
SECTION .070 TO SECTION 14.32.450 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING. (authorizing Convention Center security
guards to issue citations to persons illegally parked.in "Permit Parking" areas
adjacent to Convention Center)
80-1298
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4173: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-34(1), CO)
ORDINANCE NO. 4714: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-21(3), ML)
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that relative to the proposed Ordinance No. 4170,
the request of the neighborhood was that no parking take place starting at
10:30 p.m. and the ordinance indicated a starting time of midnight. In that
case, it would not seem to solve their problem unless it were to start much
earlier than midnight.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated that they had discussed the matter with
petitioners and explained to them that the City had a standard ordinance in-
dicating no parking between midnight and 6:00 a.m. They were, therefore, agree-
able that that merely be added to the proposed ordinance. The letter submitted
by Mr. Jacob Beyer, 3134 West Parkview Circle, indicated an arbitrary time they
had picked not knowing that parking was scheduled in specific time increments.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted in reading their letter, it appeared to her that
the parties took place as soon as it got dark and sometimes went as late as
1:00 and 2:00 a.m. Therefore, no parking starting at midnight would not
answer the question at all.
Mr. Singer explained when they contacted Mrs. Beyer, she explained that was not
the only problem they were having. Their prime concern was actually people
parking all over the neighborhood, not necessarily because of the parties, so
she was quite satisfied with midnight.
148: SCAG GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEETING - WASTE DISPOSAL WORKSHOP: Councilwoman
Kaywood reported that she attended the SCAG General Assembly meeting last
Thursday, October 2, 1980 at Griswolds in Claremont. The subject of one
of the workshops she attended was Hazardous Waste Disposal and she conceded
it was a depressing picture. There was a real question whether anything could
be extracted from the ground because of the air pollution, possible hazards to
health, packing it, moving it to the new dump site, and resultant odors along
the way. The only site in all the regions was the BKK in West Covina and at
this point, they were becoming very upset about everybody's waste being dumped
there. They had standards which prevented problems. No one else had such stan-
dards and perhaps that was why the problem originated. Hazardous waste disposal
was an ongoing problem, and there was no easy answer to it.
Councilman Bay stated that in evacuatin§ dumps, moving them out and refilling
them, he hoped that the various levels of bureaucracy and control and all the
different rulings would not make it impossible for them to do anything about
the problem so that they would have to live with existing conditions. There
may be cases where the only solution would be to evacuate the dump. He could
not think of any worse situation where there were Federal and State regulations
saying that they could not do that or make it economically impossible to do so.
He kept waiting to hear a positive side relative to some solutions. There were
positive ways to look into the future as to how they were going to handle wastes,
but he did not read that in the newspapers--only problems, but no solutions.
80-1299
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
148: GARDEN GROVE REQUEST FOR SUPPORT THAT CITIES RETAIN AUTHORITY TO ZONE
SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY: Councilman Bay noted letter dated. October 2, 1980
from the City of Garden Grove, recommending that Anaheim support a resolution
requesting the Orange County Division of the League of Cities to seek measures
to insure that the authority of cities to zone school district property contin-
ued. He thereupon read excerpts from the proposed resolution and in concluding,
stated that he would like to see as soon as possible, if a majority of the
Council wished, that they support the intent of the Garden Grove resolution
and state their interest in retaining the authority of cities to zone school
district property.
After a brief Council discussion relative to the matter, Mayor Seymour stated
that he felt they were all sensitive and supportive of what Councilman Bay
was suggesting and that they could discuss the matter at the Thursday, October 9,
1980 League of Cities, Orange County Division, meeting.
115: REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF AUTOMATIC DOOR OPENERS IN THE CIVIC CENTER:
Mayor Seymour referred to a letter received from Mr. Richard Curtis on East
Sycamore Street, a handicapped person, (who was present in the Council Chambers)
which he had copied and submitted to the Council and City Manager. His request
was for the installation of one or more automatic door openers in the Civic
Center, thereby making it easier to have access to City Hall. His purpose in
broaching the matter was to ask if the Council would be supportive of staff's
review as to what the cost would be to install those doors and/or whatever
other alternatives staff might have and then to bring those back in the form
of a report for Council action. The information he was provided, was that the
cost would be somewhere between $4,250 and $8,500 for, he assumed, one installa-
tion. At this point, he was asking for the Council to support direction being
given to staff. Mr. Curtis in his specific request felt strongly that there
should be an installation of such a door at the north end of the Civic Center.
The Mayor felt they should take a look at all ~lternatives and all the access
points and bring those back to the Council for final deliberation and decision.
Councilman Bay stated in talking about the north end of the Civic Center, he
assumed he meant on the Council Chambers level and then possibly a second one
on the second floor where the ramp crossed over to the parking structure. Even
though they might have automatic doors in those two locations, there were still
two more doors internally that would not be automatic. Therefore, when staff
considered alternatives, he did not know how accessible the side door was that
led directly into the Council Chamber or whether they were talking about acces-
sibility to Council and public meetings or accessibility to the entire building
He assumed they were looking at accessibility to the entire building.
From the audience Mr. Curtis indicated he was talking about the total building.
Councilman Bay stated, if so, he would like the report to include the alter-
natives on those possibilities.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted there were two kinds of automatic doors--those that
opened sideways and those that opened outward when anyone was in the vicinity
of the activator, opening and closing all the time. Any air conditioning or
heat would thus be dissipated if children played with the doors or if there was
80-1300
City, Hail, Anahe.'_zm, California- COUNCIL MINUTES - October 7, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
a large crowd in the Chamber as there was today and the doors would be forced
to stay open. That would not be something they would want. Also, as a second
possibility if there was a black-out and the electricity was not working, the
doors would be jammed shut or open.
Councilman Overholt presumed that there would be other considerations that staff
would come across.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent.
MOTION CARRIED (4:50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, with the exception of Councilman Roth. (6:54 P.M.)
112: TEXACO ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Attorney was authorized to settle
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 29-17-21 (Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc. vs.
City of Anaheim) for a sum not to exceed $2,000. Councilman Roth was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
112: ENCINAS VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded
by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney was authorized to settle Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 28-61-98 (Encinas vs. City of AJaheim) for a
sum not to exceed $3,500. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn to October 10, 1980 at
8:00 a.m. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:55 P.M.
~O~TY CLERK