1979/11/1379-1272
ci~ Ha. ll~ Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Gordon St. George, Anaheim Friends Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and
approved by the City Council:
"Adoption Week in Anaheim"--November 18-24, 1979
The proclamation was accepted by Mr. John Beisner.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously
adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Paul Hatanaka on behalf of the
Twin County Optimist Club for providing equipment and supplies for the arts and
crafts program at Hope School and to the students for their participation in
the program.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
minutes of the regular meeting of July 10, 1979 were approved, subject to typo-
graphical corrections. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,081,878.64, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:40 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (2:55 P.M.)
79-1273
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilman Roth offered
Resolution Nos. 79R-661 through 79R-667, both inclusive, for adoption as rec-
ommended. Refer to Resolution Book.
174: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-661: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AREAS 2, 3 & 4 -
OLIVE STREET DRAIN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-791-6325-1060.
(Prkacin Company Runje Corporation (JV), $222,236)
124: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-662: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER ARENA ACOUSTIC CEILING REPAINTING,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 64-308-7107-C9010. (Nick Geris and Sons,
$18,500)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-663: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: GILBERT STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NOS. 47-792-6325-2440 AND 47-792-6325-2460. (Ruiz Engineering Company,
$48,949.25)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-664: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: CERRITOS AVENUE-STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENT,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-3110, A.H.F.P. NOS. 941 & 942. (J.E.G.
Construction Company: Inc., $69,402.60)
123: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-665: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A DRAINAGE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (District 36, Areas 1 and 2, and District 37,
Areas ! and 2 - Peralta Hills Drive - Cerro Vista Drive - Lakeview Avenue -
Crescent Drive Drainage Reimbursement Area)
156: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-666: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING GRANT FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING TO
UNDERTAKE A JAIL VIDEO-MONITORING SYSTEM PROJECT. ($11,400)
79-1274
City Hall.~ An~im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
123: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-667: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH JIM K. TAMURA
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREE-
MENT. (appraisal services related to the City's Rehabilitation Loan Programs)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-661 through 79R-667, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
106/156: JAIL VIDEO-MONITORING SYSTEM: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilman Overholt, funds were appropriated to Program No. 17-184, Police
Support Services Program, relating to Resolution No. 79R-666, (No. 156 above).
MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF MILLIKEN TIMES SQUARE
CARPET MODULES - BID NO. 3589: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Council-
man Bay, the low bid of Custom Floors, Inc., was accepted, and purchase authorized
in the amount of $20,213, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent
in his memorandum dated November 8, 1979. MOTION CARRIED.
158: APPRAISAL REPORT - SHORBWELLS PROPERTY: Councilman Roth moved to approve
the appraisal report relating to the City-owned Shorb Wells Property located on
the south side of Esperanza Road, two miles, more or less, east of Imperial
Highway, per agreement dated October 10, 1978 between the City and the County
of Orange; and directing the City Clerk to forward a certified copy of the
minutes of this portion of the meeting to the County. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
124: CITY POLICY REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS TO SECURE A CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL:
City Manager William Talley referred to his memorandum dated November 5, 1979
relative to proposals for a Convention Center hotel adjacent to the Anaheim
Convention Center, recommending that the City Council determine Council policy
regarding further negotiations to secure the subject hotel (on file in the
City Clerk's office). He noted that several speakers and representatives of
the Community Center Authority were present to address the issue.
Mr. Allan M. Frostrom, Vice President and Secretary of Trusthouse Forte, Inc.,
P. O. Box 1887, E1 Cajon, stated that he wanted to express personally to the Mayor,
Council Members, and staff that both Mr. John Portman and Associates and Trusthouse
Forte, Inc. were very interested in discussing in detail with the staff and con-
sultants a mutually satisfactory development of a major and significant convention
hotel in Anaheim. John Portman and Associates, in his opinion, was the organ-
ization most responsible for the rebirth of major urban hotels with a Regency
design in Atlanta, and most recently the Regency at the Ehnbarcadero in San
Francisco, the Renaissance Center in Detroit and the Bonaventure Hotel in Los
Angeles. Trusthouse Forte was the North American arm of Trusthouse Forte,
Limited, the world's largest catering and leisure company. Mr. Frostrom elaborated
further on the company's credentials and their accomplishments in the hotel
field.
79-1275
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
In concluding, Mr. Frostrom urged the Council to permit the proposers to nego-
tiate in depth with staff so as to meet the objectives of both the City and
also the development team. They respectfully requested that negotiations not
be foreclosed by dealing with only one proposer, but instead to authorize staff
to discuss with the Portman Trusthouse Forte team the many financial, functional
and aesthetic facets of a development of the magnitude under discussion so as to
assure the City of obtaining the finest hotel available. They wanted to do all
possible to bring the very best convention hotel to Anaheim.
Mr. John Argue, General Counsel of Trusthouse Forte, stated that the issue appeared
to be whether two of the three bidders should be dropped from consideration at
this time. They submitted that the answer should be "no", and all three should
be allowed to complete the bid process in fairness to the bidders and in the best
interest of the people of the community. Bids were solicited and three fine
organizations came forward, each demonstrating their sincere interest. In the
case of Trusthouse Forte and Portman, the chief executive officers of each
organization had personally been involved in the talks and each of the three
bidders had gone to considerable expense. His client wanted the opportunity
to be fully heard. They respectfully submitted that it would be best to allow
the three bidders to complete the bidding process and subsequently let the best
bid win and then proceed with final documentation. He questioned disregarding any
serious bidder at this point in time. They asked that the competitive process
be permitted to continue.
Mr. Lawrence Strenger, Attorney representing the Hyatt Corporation, stated they
received a copy of the City Manager's memorandum on the subject of the present
motion, and he was present to indicate their belief that the City Manager's
second or third recommendation (see page 2 of the November 5, 1979 memorandum)
be followed and that negotiations be continued with his client. Without elab-
orating on the October 9, 1979 letter to the City Manager, which he believed had
been made available to the Council, the hotel project, to the best of their know-
ledge was originally proposed by his clients to the Convention Center staff and
negotiated with the City Manager under the auspices of the Council Liaison Committee
and the Community Center Authority (CCA).
Those negotiations, which they believed had reached the point of developing a
proposal to be submitted to the Council Liaison Committee for negotiation, would
then set aside for the present request for proposal procedure. In their opinion
it stated that the proposals would be negotiated with the City Manager's office
and Community Center Authority Board and its members and staff. That had not
happened. They met once in an open meeting with the CCA Board and elements of
City staff. The evening after, they were told that a strong preference for one
rather than the other side existed. They had no other communication except with
the economic consultants. They did not believe and dissented from the City
Manager's memorandum that any conclusion could be drawn as to his clients' proposal
because they did not believe it was ever, to their knowledge, submitted in its
entirety.
Under Section 4 of the request for proposal (RFP), they assumed that a conclusive
negotiation procedure, a continuation of the one they were very familiar with,
would go on. His clients urged that negotiations of the long, thought out and
serious proposal be continued in the best interest of the City and his clients
79-1276
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
as well. He then deferred to Mr. Nicholas Pritzker.
Mr. Nicholas Pritzker, Vice President in charge of development for Hyatt, then
gave the background credentials on the Hyatt Hotel chain considered to be the
finest hotels in the world. He reiterated that they be allowed to make their
position clear to the City and to continue to negotiate to bring the Hyatt
Regency Hotel to Anaheim.
Mr. James Philon, Vice President of Real Estate & Development, Hilton Hotels
Corporation, 9880 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, stated they had presented
each Council Member with a copy to the City Manager's office, of a letter
supporting their position that the matter before the Council today was to
determine further City policy with respect to the hotel matter and the Convention
Center. If the Council wished, he could read the letter, but in the interest
of time, he suggested that the Council take whatever action they wished to make
the letter a part of the record.
As previously stated, the position they had taken was that the City at all times
was involved in the process and policies established in the invitation to submit
proposals, and that he believed each of the proposers were aware of deadlines
established in that procedure. Presumably they complied, although he noted from
the staff report that apparently one did not comply with some very specific
instructions. They maintained the position that the policy outlined in the
invitation to submit proposals was to select a hotel company with which to
negotiate exclusively on the Convention Center hotel. They also pointed out in
the letter that they had some concern in that either directly or by inference,
proprietary elements of their proposal had been discussed, and notwithstanding
the fact that the Hilton Wrather joint venture had confirmed to City staff, that
City staff understood their proposal as presented. They would be deeply concerned
about the manner in which any verification would be handled to preclude any op-
portunities for two of the three proposers to further modify or add to the
proposal which they understood came to an end on the August 24, 1979 deadline
given to all three bidders by the CCA and City staff.
Councilman Overholt stated he wanted to be sure it was Mr. Philon's intent to
make the letter of November 12, 1979 to the Council a public record in view of
the fact that it had a number of attachments to it.
Mr. Philon clarified that the intent was that the letter only be a public record
and that the attachments were for information purposes only.
Councilman Overholt asked for clarification that he was offering the letter only
without the attachments as a public record; Mr. Philon stated that was correct.
Mr. Richard Stevens, Vice President of Wrather and President of Disneyland Hotel,
stated by going back in the public record and by the exhibits they had, it was
evident that the process in some detail had been under consideration actively
for a period of nine months. The very explicit and specific rules as set down
by the City were set forth at the outset of that nine-month period. During that
time, one deadline was imposed for proposals. They met that deadline and subse-
quent to that, they were advised by City staff that each of the three proposers
79-1277
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
would be interviewed in depth by representatives of City staff, including Mr.
Liegler, Mr. Talley and the City Attorney and that the City, because of a desire
to have a professional analysis made of the proposals, sought an outstanding firm
to represent them. Economic Research Associates (ERA) was selected and they had
no quarrel with that selection since it was one of the leading companies in the
world in analyzing real estate proposals of the subject nature.
Subsequent to that selection and the initial analysis of the proposals, Wrather
and the other two bidders were submitted for an in depth interview, theirs
lasting in excess of two hours which was exceedingly detailed. During the
interview, a number of questions were asked that could not be answered on the
spot. Mr. Ben Shroeder, Chairman of the CCA, stated that one of Wrather's opponents
had requested an extension on the deadline, since there were questions they
could not answer. They were likewise given an identical extension and were
advised at that meeting very explicitly that they and all other bidders would
have an absolute and definitive timetable to submit any further or last modifi-~
cations to the proposals. They were directed to communicate with ERA as the
City's representative and they did so. They met the deadline in writing in
complete compliance with City's directions and a second contract was let by the
City or CCA. He used both interchangeably because City staff and the CCA were
working very closely on a day-to-day basis. Further clarifications were author-
ized to be made under a subsequent contract awarded the ERA and that was completed
by yet another deadline. After the public meeting at which time the ERA made its
recommendations and proprietary information was made public, they were completely
at ease because they understood the rules of the game, as he must assume the other
two sophisticated organizations did likewise.
It was only after that meeting when they received word of some conflict, that
they became concerned that there might be some attempt to obviate the rules.
He then addressed a letter to Mr. Ben Shroeder on September 14, 1979 contained.
in the exhibit package. Subsequently, Mr. Shroeder had a representative of
the City, who received copies of that letter, assure Wrather that their under-
standing of the rules was complete and accurate. Subsequently, the CCA Board
unanimously recommended that the City Manager, upon clarification or confirma-
tion of the ideal points with Wrather, submit the CCA recommendation to the
City Council for the selection of Wrather as the exclusive negotiating party
from that time forward until they were either successful or unsuccessful in
negotiating a definitive contract with the City. To change the rules at this
point would be extremely damaging to their organization and inconceivable
to him that the City would undertake, after the fact, to change such clear-cut
instructions. He could understand the desire on the part of the competition
who did not submit the winning bid that they would like to have the process
reopened. If they (Wrather) had not been the best bidder with the least financial
risks to the City, they would concur and try to do the same thing. He emphasized
that the rules should remain as the rules.
Mr. Ben Shroeder, Past President of the CCA, stated for purposes of clarification
there were some questions that needed to be asked and some clarification of
procedures made. He felt it was a normal matter of confusion to people when
they spoke of the City and the CCA to view them as one. They were not the
same group, but worked with the same staff. The City did not hire ERA, but it
was a choice of the CCA. They were carefully chosen from several recommmended
79-1278
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
by staff, the staff interviewed them, and without exception the only economic
consultant that would not have a possible conflict of interest was the ERA group.
He believed that each of the submitters in their initial submission, due and
received on the 16th day of July, indicated their intent. Each of their intents
was to build a convention center hotel and since each of the bidders were very
highly qualified hotel operators, the CCA had to assume they were all talking
about the same type of hotel--a convention headquarter hotel. In the submission
from Mr. Talley, he stated he did not enter into the negotiations. Mr. Talley
was appointed by the CCA as their negotiator to get a hotel for the convention
center site in Anaheim. At a later date, Mayor Seymour and Councilman Overholt
attended a meeting at which time Mr. Talley was requested to send out requests
for proposals to several hotel operators and subsequently sent the RFP's to
approximately 31 different operators. Three replies were received and a fourth,
as well, but it was too late and did not make the July 16 deadline.
They held meetings with each of the proposers at which time they were told that
they would have an extension to August 24, 1979 and each had the same deadline.
At a subsequent executive session of the CCA and the Council Liaison Committee,
the City Manager was instructed to use the three proposals and that they were to
negotiate. There were to be no further negotiations and they were to take action
based upon the second report of the ERA at the October 1, 1979 meeting, at which
time they recommended that negotiations be carried on with the Hilton-Wrather
proposal.
Mayor Seymour stated that concluded the public participation on the subject. The
question before the Council was to direct the City Manager as far as determining
the Council policy regarding future negotiations in securing a convention center
hotel.
Mayor Seymour stated, going back in time, the City Manager had been instructed to
try to secure a convention center hotel and began negotiations with Hyatt. Sub-
sequent to that time, the City Manager, Councilman Overholt and he felt it was
desirable to put out a request for proposals, which was done. At that particular
time, the month of May, they decided to open the process up to insure the best
proposal for the City. Although there had been suggestions, if not allegations
made, that the process was not complete and thorough and, therefore, fair to all
bidders, he disagreed. He believed it was not only a complete and thorough process,
but also it had conformed to the rules that were established at the outset in May.
The proposals had been under study and negotiation for over six months. He felt
personally that the CCA had done an outstanding job of sifting through the complex
proposals and should be commended, and he was prepared to support their recommendation
in directing the City Manager to enter into exclusive negotiations at this point
with Wrather-Hilton (W-H) to finalize the proposals. He based that recommendation
on the same basis as the CCA. Further, there was no doubt in reading the ERA
evaluation, it clearly indicated by a fair margin the greatest economic return to
the City would be with the W-H proposal.
The Mayor continued that he had been closer to the process than anyone else on
the Council. In the past weeks, he had not only discussed the matter individually
with members of the Council, but also members of the CCA, and he was convinced
that, (1) a total and complete process had taken place, (2) that the W-H proposal
was "head and shoulders" above the other proposals and, (3) the entire process
79-1279
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
now deserved public scrutiny relative to a total and complete opening and making
public the data that had been compiled in the reports as well. In substance, he
was prepared to move ahead to direct the City Manager to enter into an exclusive
agreement with Wrather-Hilton to further finalize the negotiations to secure a
Wrather-Hilton hotel at the Convention Center.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the Mayor if she undermtood him to say that he had
discussed the matter individually with all of the Council.
Mayor Seymour stated he discussed it with Councilmen Overholt, Roth and Bay
individually, but he was unable to reach her by telephone.
The Mayor clarified that he also discussed it with Mr. Hostetter, Henderson and
Shroeder.
Councilman Overholt stated that he and the Mayor did discuss the matter, and they
had a difference of opinion on the completeness of the process to date, and he,
too, commended the CCA for their diligence and for the expenditure of hours
beyond which they should not be required to work for the City for no salary.
He was a member of the Liaison Committee that was involved to some extent in the
process carried on primarily by the CCA. He also had great sympathy for three
members of the Council who did not have the proposals before them earlier than
approximately two weeks ago and he also talked with Councilman Bay and Council-
woman Kaywood. He did not have an opportunity to talk with Councilman Roth as
he informed him (Roth) by telephone, to try to brief them on what had happened
to date in the selection process of a hotel for the Convention Center. He then
asked the Mayor, since the ERA report was not a public record at the present time,
if it was his intent to now make it a public record.
The Mayor stated it was intention to do so and thereupon offered a motion directing
the City Manager to enter into an exclusive agreement with Wrather-Hilton to
finalize negotiations relative to a convention center hotel and at the same time
to make public the ERA report and the data supporting that recommendation from
the CCA. The motion died for lack of a second.
Councilman Overholt stated since the ERA report at this time was not a public
record, he preferred not to speak to that report. In his opinion, there had not
been a complete process primarily because the ultimate decision in the extremely
important venture for the City lay with the five people on the Council and three
of the members were almost viewing it denovo.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt stated that as a member of the Liaison Committee,
he really had not been involved fully in the deliberations and thus he was pre-
pared to offer a motion to reject all bids on the grounds that none of the
proposers met the City's stated objectives and that the City Manager's office
put together a negotiating team for the purpose of continuing negotiations with
the three proposers now in the picture - Wrather-Hilton, Portman and the Hyatt
Regency. He would not make the motion as yet because he wanted to give everyone
else an opportunity to speak.
Councilman Bay stated he was ready to second such a motion; Councilman Overholt
thereupon so moved.
79-1280
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated as he understood the motion, it
was (1) to reject all bids and (2) to direct the City Manager to further negotiate
with Wrather-Hilton, Hyatt and Portman Trusthouse Forte.
Councilman Overholt stated that the motion was directing the City Manager to
assemble a team for the purpose of continuing those negotiations.
Mr. Talley stated he would have some questions if the motion were adopted.
Councilman Roth stated he was in an awkward position because he was not privvy
to the negotiations since he was not part of the Liaison Committee. He had not
spoken to staff on the subject until he received a briefing by the City Manager
and a short telephone call from the Mayor. His position was clear--he was
concerned with the bottom line, that being, what was best for the taxpayers of
the community. It appeared that the proposal was to reject all bids and ask for
a renegotiation with all three proposers. The public had to have patience with
them relative to the process so that they could become better informed since they
were not a part of the Liaison meetings, the CCA meetings and City staff meetings.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that on something as major and important as a con-
vention center hotel, she needed more information in order to make a final
decision. It was something that was going to impact the City not just for 50
years, but 100 years or longer, and she did not feel that there was any need
to rush to judgment on it. She would therefore support the motion.
Councilman Bay stated he had nothing to add.
Councilman Overholt asked that the City Manager address his concerns with the
form of the motion since it included direction to his office.
Mr. Talley explained that he (Overholt) stated that he should assemble a team,
but he had not received any negotiating instructions. He assumed that he would
either meet with the Liaison Committee or the Council would tell him to begin
negotiations if the motion were adopted. The motion am articulated clearly
directed him to assemble a negotiating team.
Councilman Overholt amended the motion stating that the City Manager be directed
to meet with the Liaison Committee, (the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tern), for the
purpose of together assembling a negotiating team for continuing negotiations
with all three proposers.
Mr. Talley stated that now he knew what he had to do.
Councilman Bay accepted the amendment to his second.
Mayor Seymour stated that there was no possible way he knew of that a majority
of the Council could negotiate a contract with anybody because they would be in
violation of the Brown Act. The fact that they had two weeks to review extensive
documentation and with six months of study and negotiations back and forth, that
certainly should provide adequate background information. In his discussions
with Councilman Overholt and the City Manager, he asked that the City Manager
clearly, totally and completely explain the proposals to the Council individually
79-1281
City Hall~ Anahe~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November ,13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
which he (Talley) assured him he had done. As to the question of more study,
he did not know what benefit there was in that. Relative to further negoti-
ations, in his opinion, there was always a better deal tomorrow. There would
always be a better bid. To the degree that they would continue negotiations
in the future, unless some responsible proposers might lose credibility in
the process thereby choosing to withdraw, in his opinion they might be (1)
risking litigation in the future and, (2) risking the loss of a sorely needed
convention center hotel. With those warnings, he was prepared, with the motion
about to be adopted, to join in the most positive spirit he knew how to carry
out the wishes of the Council in further negotiating a hotel.
Councilman Overholt stated he appreciated the Mayor joining in the action and
pledged his total support in working with him and the management team in
achieving exactly what he had set forth.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion as amended.
voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour
174: H.E.R.E. RAPE CRISIS CLINIC: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-668
for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated November 7, 1979 from the Deputy
City Manager James Ruth, accepting $12,095 from the State Office of Criminal
Justice Planning to fund the H.E.R.E. Rape Crisis Clinic and authorizing the
City Manager to execute a grant extension through July 31, 1980. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-668: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING $12,095 FROM THE STATE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING TO FUND THE
HELP ELIMINATE RAPE EVERYWHERE (H.E.R.E.) RAPE CRISIS CLINIC AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A GRANT EXTENSION.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that he received a communication
that the Rape Crisis Clinic had been closed.
Deputy City Manager James Ruth stated that he had spoken with Dee Spring at the
Clinic at 11:00 a.m. today and the Clinic was in business as of that time. As
noted by Mr. Talley, Miss Spring was also present earlier in the meeting. Subject
to obtaining the requested funding, the Clinic could remain open through the
remainder of the year and through next year as well, but it was dependent upon
obtaining the subject grant as outlined in his memorandum dated November 7, 1979.
Councilman Bay noted from the report that there was a past problem of documen-
tation of expenditures which he assumed would be cleared up.
Mr. Ruth stated that he felt it was cleared up at this point. They had delineated
the responsibility and they had to report back to the Orange County Criminal
Justice Planning Counsel. If the proper documentation was not available, the
Grant would not be awarded.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution.
79-1282
City Hall~ Anahe.im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
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. 79R-668 duly passed and adopted.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the said amount
was appropriated in Program No. 01-344-6340. MOTION CARRIED.
175: INCREASE IN RETAIL ENERGY COST ADJUSTMENT BILLING FACTORS: Mr. Gordon
Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager, briefed the Council on the three-page
memorandum dated November 5, 1979 from the Public Utilities Board (PUB) with
exhibits (on file in the City Clerk's office) recommending an increase in the
lifeline energy cost adjustment billing factor (ECABF) from 0.0¢kwh to 0.062¢kwh.
The resolution should include a revised non-lifeline ECABF of 1.452¢ intended to
bring the Energy Cost balancing account (ECBA) to a zero balance by May 31, 1980,
the end of the six-month forecast. The last increase had taken place on Septem-
ber 1, 1979, and it was necessary that another increase take place on December 1,
1979.
At the conclusion of Mr. Hoyt's presentation, Councilman Roth asked in the average
household receiving lifeline rates, what the dollar increase would be.
Mr. Hoyt answered that every residential consumer benefited from the lifeline rate.
The average customer used approximately 500 kw hours per month and that bill would
increase from $24.18 up to $25.54. Southern California Edison's current rate was
$26.54 and, therefore, if the requested increase went into effect, the difference
between Edison's rates and that paid by Anaheim customers would be $1 per month.
After Mr. Hoyt clarified additional questions posed by the Council, Councilman
Bay offered Resolution No. 79R-669 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated
November 5, 1979 from the Public Utilities Board, increasing the Retail Energy
Cost Adjustment Billing Factors (lifeline and non-lifeline), effective December 1,
1979. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-669: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 71R-478 AND AMENDED
BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NOS. 73R-25, 73R-373, 73R-531, 74R-75, 74R-630, 74R-243,
74R-344, 75R-345, 76R-41, 76R-377, 76R-528, 76R-817, 77R-464, 77R-628, 78R-458,
78R-665, 79R-292, AND 79R-309.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-669 duly passed and adopted.
79-1283
City Hall~ Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
175: ADVISORY ELECTION RELATING TO A POWER SALES CONTRACT - INTERMOUNTAIN POWER
PROJECT (IPP): Mr. Gordon Hoyt, General Manager Public Utilities briefed the
Council on the detailed four-page memorandum dated November 2, 1979 from the PUB
with attachments (on file in the City Clerk's office) relative to an advisory
election regarding execution of a Power Sales Contract with the Intermountain
Power Agency to purchase electric power from the Intermountain Power Project.
The Board recommended that the City Council make a decision on execution of a
power sales contract with the Intermountain Power Agency to purchase electric
power from the IPP. The Board further recommended that the Council find that
an advisory election is not needed since the basic issue was approved by the
electorate March 4, 1975.
Mr. Hoyt, by way of explanation, reported that he raised the question at a recent
meeting of the Council and Department Heads with the press present and suggested
that a determination be reached as to whether or not there would be an advisory
election on the IPP. The Council's instructions were to take the matter back
to the PUB for a recommendation. The presentation made to the Board was essen-
tially the same as the presentation made to the City Council. The vote of the
Board was five to two that the matter not be referred to the electorate for an
advisory vote. He (Hoyt) pointed out to the Board at that time that his recom-
mendation was that there not be an election based on the management of the business.
It was, however, clearly a political determination and the political determination
of the need for a vote was something that would be made by the political leaders
of the community. The Board was expressing itself in its role of helping to
manage the Public Utilities.
Mayor Seymour asked when in the Executive meeting that was discussed, because
he did not remember the Council directing Mr. Hoyt to go to the PUB, to ask their
opinion as to whether or not the matter should go before the voters. He thought
that had been a predetermined answer and, therefore, he was either not at the
meeting or did not understand. He repeated that he did not recall the direction
Mr. Hoyt was talking about and asked if there was an action of the Council.
Councilman Roth answered "no", and what he believed happened was, in the last
management seminar, the Mayor had to leave.
Mr. Hoyt stated that he made the presentation during the course of the meeting
and one of the Council Members asked what the Board had said about the matter.
He answered that he had told them that he had told the Board it was his under-
standing there was going to be an election but he had not solicited an opinion
from the Board. At that time, he felt it was a consensus instruction from the
Council, particularly from Councilman Roth and Bay, indicating that he go back
and get a recommendation from the PUB. Perhaps he misunderstood.
Councilman Roth stated that he thought for some reason the Mayor was not present
when the discussion came up. He had asked Mr. Hoyt if he knew the feeling of
the Board, and at the time he also asked what the impact might be relative to
the publicity concerning the $13 million refund the City was going to receive
as a result of rate cases. He felt a deep concern as to whether the Council
should proceed without having an election or without having more input.
79-1284
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hoyt stated that they certainly needed more input since they were not ready
to make a decision relative to "go or no go." He proceeded on the basis that
there was going to be an election scheduled for April, and he took the directions
from the Council as being to take the matter to the Board.
Mayor Seymour then stated that he did not recall those discussions. He under-
stood and agreed that the issue was whether or not there was a benefit to the
City's participation in the IPP, and he would be looking for recommendations from
the PUB on that matter. As far as the question of whether or not a $1.5 billion
decision would go before the voters, he thought that had been decided long ago
and he was shocked, angered and dismayed to think that the Council would even
begin to consider not putting the question before the voters.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know if his anger, shock and dismay was because
the PUB was asked for their opinion.
Mayor Seymour answered that he felt strongly from what he read in the November 2,
1979 report, that the Utilities General Manager took it upon himself to ask the
Board whether or not there should be a vote. The record would show that in the
past he, Councilwoman Kaywood, and Councilman Roth voted that when the question
on IPP came up, it would go to the voters, and he never recalled any other vote
being taken any other way. He was angered and shocked over the fact that such
a question would even be considered and it almost sounded as though Mr. Hoyt
attempted to lobby the PUB and evidently was successful, and was still attempting
to lobby the Council to consider not putting the question on the ballot. He
could not express how strongly he was opposed to that and that the Council
could consider a thirty-year commitment costing $1.5 billion and not asking the
electorate whether or not they wanted to do so.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had not heard any Council discussion as yet as
to whether or not anyone was considering not putting the question on the ballot.
Her only reason for the question was due to the fact that everything that was
brought before the Council relative to Utilities, items that did not concern
the PUB, the one question the Mayor always asked was whether or not it had been
reviewed by the PUB.
Mayor Seymour countered that of the matter at hand, he already stated that a
majority of the present Council had gone on record as stating when the question
arose, it would go to the voters. He reiterated, he wanted the PUB's opinion
relative to the issue, as well as the pros and cons of the issue. He did not
need their opinion or Mr. Hoyt's opinion as to whether or not the people of
Anaheim should have a right to vote on the expenditure of funds under consider-
ation.
Mr. Hoyt stated, if he misunderstood the direction of the Council, he apologized.
Councilman Overholt stated it was true that the entire discussion on the issue
took place when the Mayor was present and he recalled that the Mayor strongly
stated the position he had just expressed. He (Overholt) also supported the
same position, but he did not think there was any type discussion at that par-
ticular management session. He believed that discussion was, that as the
Council, they would have to make the decision, and he could not speak as to
79-1285
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
whether there was any direction to go to the PUB. He recalled that they were
anticipating taking the action necessary to put the question on the ballot.
He did not feel that strongly that there was a misinterpretation of direction
and felt that it could well have come from the management session. His position
had not changed since that time.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to direct the City Manager to prepare a pro-
posal relative to the IPP with public hearings to be held upon recommendation
of the PUB regarding the issue. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mayor Seymour stated that he did not want his position on the issue misconstrued.
If he was convinced after the issue was aired that it was in the best interest of
the City to pursue IPP, he would be happy to lead the way and support it. He
was not opposed to the project, but was strongly supportive of the idea of
placing it before the voters who had the final say in the matter.
Mr. Keith Murdoch, Wedgewood Drive, stated his concern was relative to what the
question on an election might actually be. There were very opposing ways of
presenting the issue - (1) shall the City enter into a contract for so many years
with party A to purchase power, from the IPP or, (2) shall it continue to
purchase power in the present mode for an equal number of years. He would be
very interested as to how the question was worded on the ballot.
The Mayor stated Mr. Murdoch brought up a good question. He recalled seeing
some sample language as to how the question would be presented and that in itself,
how the question or the alternatives would be phrased, was something that Mr.
Hoyt and the City Manager would develop for the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was concerned that the full question be placed
before the voters.
Councilman Bay stated he was concerned with that aspect. If they did not go one
way, he wanted to know what the alternative would be and what very large dollar
figures they were then going to be looking at. He was very concerned over how
the question would be presented to the voters because they were talking about
the difference between power from American Coal or power from OPEC oil.
175: AMENDMENT NO. 5 - IPP MEMBERSHIP AND S~JDY AGREEMENT: Mr. Hoyt briefed
the Council on memorandum dated November 5, 1979 from the PUB relative to the
subject, recommending that the Council approve Amendment No. 5 to the IPP mem-
bership and Study Agreement and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager
to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. He stated the recommendation
was simply to extend the term for one year, to December 31, 1980.
Mayor Seymour asked with the extension, would it be possible to buy more time
to prepare for the election to take it beyond an April election enabling them
to bring it before the voters in the June primary or, to the furthest extent,
the November general election.
79-1286
City Hail~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hoyt explained that the current plan was to sell the bonds and receive the
funds by the end of June. There was a question in his mind as to whether that
schedule could be met and it was more likely that it would be late summer before
that could happen. He did not think they could put the election off. The other
some thirty partners, even though they had known about the election for many years,
had expressed their unhappiness over the late date. In the event of a failure
of the election, it would throw the project into a difficult situation. He felt,
therefore, that they would be very reluctant to grant the additional time to
execute the power sales agreement.
Mayor Seymour referred to page 2, second to last paragraph of the memorandum
dated November 2, 1979 to the City Manager/City Council regarding the advisory
election relative to IPP stating, "The project intends to employ an independent
consulting engineering firm to render an opinion on the project feasibility and
estimated project costs. This opinion probably will not be available until
about the time the Power Sales Contract is ready for execution."
Mr. Hoyt stated it was not for the benefit of the participants. The reason for
the independent consulting engineer was essentially to work with the Official
Statement. He was suggesting that the independent consulting engineer, whether
R.W. Beck or Stearns Rogers or someone of that nature, would be looking at the
financial capabilities of all of the participants pointing out all of the
benefits of the project to all participants, including Anaheim. Their work was
probably not going to be done until about the time the election was going to
be held. It could be done a little afterwards or before.
Councilman Roth stated he would like to see the election in June particularly
because of the voter turnout which was usually much greater than the turnout for
City Council elections in the past.
Mr. Hoyt stated if the Council wished him to specifically ask the Board of
Directors, he would take action to set it up.
Mayor Seymour stated not only that, but he concurred with Councilman Roth, it
would be helpful, if they decided to lead and support the issue, they would be
well armed to have the independent consultant's analysis in their task to convince
the voters of the worthwhileness of the project. He added to Councilman Roth's
request that consideration be given to bringing the consultant on in time, so
that they could have the benefit of that analysis.
Mr. Hoyt stated it was entirely possible they might be able to bring the consultant
on and get him to make some recommendations or state his opinion with regard to
Anaheim up front. He had R.W. Beck working on the matter at present to provide
a cost comparison.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the Mayor if he was talking about aiming for a June
or April election; the Mayor stated June, if possible.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that if it was a June election, there would be addi-
tional costs involved, since it represented a special election and such costs
were of consequence.
79-1287
City Hall~ Anahe. im.~.. California- COUNCIL MINUTES -November 13~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked if it mattered if there was a 50% turnout of the electorate
compared to a 10% to 15% turnout; Councilwoman Kaywood felt it was up to the
electorate as to whether or not they wanted to come out and vote for something
of such great import. Nobody was preventing anybody from voting.
City Clerk Roberts clarified for Councilman Roth that although there was a June
primary, Anaheim was not dir~ctly involved. The last time a special election
was held, Anaheim's cost was approximately $6,000, and there were four issues
on the ballot at that time.
Councilman Roth stated it would then cost about $2,000 to get meaningful input
relative to that important issue. He felt if they took it out of the April
election, it would be less political in June and they would also be able to
obtain a better consensus of the feeling of their constituents at that time.
Mr. Hoyt stated that he did not want to be too optimistic in the views that
the partners would support that extension of time.
Councilman Bay stated, so that there would be no doubt in the direction of the
Council since there appeared to have been some in the past, Mr. Hoyt heard two
Councilmen (Seymour and Roth) ask him to try to see if the Board would favor an
extension so that the issue could be placed on the June ballot. He would add his
direction as well so that Mr. Hoyt would know he had at least three Council
Members advising him to ask the Board of Directors if they would consent to
having the matter on the June ballot.
Councilman Overholt stated, as a member of the Council who was not running in
April, he would also so direct Mr. Hoyt.
Mr. Hoyt stated he would then so move at the next Board of Directors meeting
on December 18, 1979.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, Amendment
No. 5 to the Intermountain Power Project Membership and Study Agreement was
authorized and the Public Utilities General Manager authorized to execute same
extended to December 31, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
175: ROCK CREEK-CRESTA WATER POWER PROJECT: Mr. Hoyt briefed the Council on
memorandum dated November 5, 1979 from the PUB relative to the subject project,
recommending that the City file a competing application with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a license for the Rock Creek-Cresta Water
Power Project of the North Fork Feather River Project, FERC Project No. 1962,
and appropriating $25,000 from available Electric Revenue Bond funds for the
City's share of the cost. He then further clarified in detail questions posed
by Councilman Bay relative to the recommendation.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Public Utilities
General Manager was authorized to file a competing application with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission as recommended. MOTION CARRIED.
79-1288
City Hal~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NovEmber 13, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
123: ECONOMIC SCIENCES CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S
ELECTRICAL' ENERGY~kND DEMAND FORECASTS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No.
79R-670 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated November 5, 1979 from
the PUB authorizing an agreement with Economic Sciences Corporation in an
amount not to exceed $7,500 for professional services in the presentation and
support of the City's electrical energy and demand forecasts (CFM-II) before
the California Energy Commission in their biennial report hearings. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-670: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHIEM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ECONOMIC SCIENCES CORPOR-
ATION AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
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. 79R-670 duly passed and adopted.
106: MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt,
the said amount was appropriated from available funds in Electric Fund 55 to
Program No. 55-462-6310. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4079 - RELATING TO ZONING OF ADULT ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES:
City Attorney William Hopkins briefed the Council on proposed Ordinance No. 4079.
The matter had been reviewed by the Police Department and the City Manager's
office and basically the ordinance being submitted was similar to that which
was adopted in the City of Detroit. Action could be taken for a first reading
today with final adoption on next Tuesday, November 20, with the Ordinance
becoming effective on December 20, 1979.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4079 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4079: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 18.89
TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING OF ADULT ENTERTAIN-
MENT BUSINESSES.
112: SHELBY VS. CITY OF ANA~IM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by
Councilman Roth, the City Attorney was authorized to settle Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 29-20-54 (Shelby vs. City of Anaheim) for a sum not to exceed
$2,000. MOTION CARRIED.
118: CLAIM OF ROBERT A. MUES: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by
Councilman Roth, the City Attorney and Carl Warren were authorized to settle
the claim of Robert A. Mues for a sum not to exceed $1,048. MOTION CARRIED.
166: ORANGE COUNTY FURNITURE GALLERY, INC. - REQUEST FOR USE OF SIGNS AND BANNEN~:
FOR A PERIOD OF NINETY DAYS: (property located at 1080 Kraemer Place - CUP No. 1923)
Ms. Carole Jones, Orange County Furniture Gallery, explained that the request was
for a waiver in regard to Conditions Nos. 6 and 7 of the resolution approving of
79-1289
city Hal.l, ..Anahei~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
CUP No. 1923 regarding banners and window signs. As stated in their letter
dated November 6, 1979 (made a part of the record) the decision of the Council
on October 16, 1979 (see minutes that date and Resolution No. 79R-597) neces-
sitated their going out of business. They had applied for a quitting business
license which they had obtained for a 90-day period. They hoped the Council
would have sympathy in the matter and allow them to at least have window signs
and banners that they felt were unobtrusive but necessary to the success of
their sale and in keeping them from bankruptcy. She was certain the Council
was aware of the presentation made by Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney, who was
actually representing the builder. She believed the citation and initial
presentation were in regard to Curtis Furniture, and she emphasized that she
was present specifically on Orange County Furniture Gallery.
Ms. Jones then confirmed for Councilman Roth that they did not have another
building to go to in 90 days and after that time depending upon the financial
outcome, she did not know what they would do thereafter.
Councilman Roth asked if she would actually stipulate that Orange County Furniture
Gallery would be out of business in 90 days or be in a wholesale situation at that
time.
Ms. Jones stated that they were going out of business because they could not
function under the stipulations of Conditional Use Permit No. 1923 as outlined
in Resolution No. 79R-597, 50% wholesale and 50% retail at the end of one year.
That stipulation made no sense to her and her partner, having been trained in
the business for 15 years. A business could not be 50% wholesale and 50% retail.
The Mayor stated they could amend the requirement and make it 100% wholesale;
Ms. Jones stated that the wholesale business was an entirely different kind of
business.
The Mayor asked who told her that she could conduct a retail business at the
subject location.
Ms. Jones explained that they were told by the industrial brokers when they
signed the lease and the lease clearly stated, retail furniture sales. They
were also told by the broker and the landlord that if they were to apply for
their license under class B that they were in the process of getting variances
in that area.
Mayor Seymour asked if they were aware that they were running a retail business
in an area where only wholesale was permitted since their business license indi-
cated they were aware of that fact.
Ms. Jones stated "yes", they were but they were convinced by somebody else to
proceed and that it would only be a matter of time before variances would be
granted.
Mayor Seymour stated he did not have any difficulty with Ms. Jones' request. How-
ever, she inferred that the Council was the cause of her difficulty when, in fact,
it was her own decision or because she had depended upon other people for their
advice and subsequently chose to violate the ordinance. He did not have much
79-1290
.City, Hall, p, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13, 197~ 1:30 P.M.
sympathy under those circumstances. By stipulating 50% wholesale and 50% retail
at the end of one year, they were trying to give those people who could do so
the time and opportunity to convert their illegal business to a legal one which
would be wholesale. Orange County Furniture Gallery was a pure retail business
and should not have been in the location in the first place; Ms. Jones acknow-
ledged that fact.
Councilman Roth stated the Council was not going to be the cause of putting
Orange County Furniture Gallery into bankruptcy. He was not supportive of the
Council's prior action and at this time wa~ supportive of the present request,
providing Ms. Jones would stipulate that the Gallery would be leaving the area
or would be going into 100% wholesale after 90 days.
Ms. Jones stated that after 90 days they would be completely out of the premises,
and they were hoping to liquidate even sooner than that.
MOTION: Councilman Bay, on the basis of Ms. Jones stipulation, moved to grant
the request for the use of signs and banners for a period of 90 days on the
property located at 1080 Kraemer Place during their quitting business sale.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney Hopkins noted that Resolution No. 79R-597
adopted by the Council at the meeting of October 16, 1979 contained a number
of provisions, specifically Condition No. 6 stating that no flags or banners
shall be permitted on the premises, and No. 7, that no window signs shall be
permitted. In essence, the applicant was requesting that they be given permis-
sion to violate the terms of the CUP. In order to make an amendment or a
change in those conditions, another public hearing would be required where the
conditions might be changed at the end of that hearing.
Discussion followed between Council and staff as to how the Council could assist
Orange County Furniture Gallery relative to their request, at the conclusion of
which, City Attorney Hopkins reiterated that the only course of action that could
be taken in order to change the conditions of the CUP would be to hold a public
hearing.
City Clerk Roberts stated that the earliest date a public hearing could be set
was in three weeks.
By general consent, the Council set the subject request for a change in conditions
of CUP No. 1923 for a public hearing on December 4, 1979 at 3:00 P.M. granting a
stay in the interim. '
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman
Roth, Application for a Public Fireworks Permit submitted by Pyro Spectaculars
Inc., on behalf of Western High School, to discharge fireworks on November 15,'!
1979, at 8:30 p.m., at Handel Stadium was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS PERMIT: Application submitted by Astro Pyrotechnics, on
behalf of Stadium Motor Sports, to discharge fireworks on November 16 and 17,
1979, between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., at the Anaheim Stadium, was
presented.
79-1291
City Hall,...~nahe.im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the subject application. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they intended to discharge
the fireworks every hour on the hour or what the schedule might be. She could
not approve an application where no set time was indicated.
Councilman Bay stated that the application implied a four-hour duration, and he
could not approve that vague indication but could do so if there was a specific
time period such as between 9:00 or 10:00 or 7:00 and 8:00. He also noted that
the 11:00 p.m. ending time was one hour beyond the 10:00 p.m. curfew time set
for discharging fireworks.
Councilman Roth amended his motion that the fireworks be discharged no later
than 10:00 p.m.; Councilman Overholt was agreeable to the amendment.
City Manager Talley stated he had just talked to the Fire Marshall, and he stated
the fireworks would be discharged periodically at the start of events. The Fire
Marshall also explained to the applicant that the 11:00 p.m. time was beyond the
curfew, and so they were cognizant of that fact.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no".
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:
a. Claim submitted by Edward W. Thomas III for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of loss of his property (motorcycle) by Anaheim Police, on or about
September 7, 1979.
b. Claim submitted by Arloene B. Miller for damages to sign purportedly sustained
as a result of falling tree limb during tree-trimming activities by City crew
at 117 W. Cypress Street, on or about October 2, 1979.
c. Claim submitted by Marlea Thompson for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police, on or about August 18, 1979.
d. Claim submitted by Angela Victoria Virgo for personal injuries and vehicular
damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident caused by malfunctioning
traffic signal at the intersection of Orange Street and Western, north and south-
bound, on or about July 24, 1979.
e. Claim submitted by Steve Collector for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of actions by cashier at Anaheim Stadium parking lot, Orangewood en-
trance gate, on or about July 7, 1979.
79 -1292
City Hall~ Anahei~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
f. Claim submitted by C. Nick Cinocco for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium Portal 4 Field
Level, on or about September 22, 1979.
g. Claim submitted by Orange County Menu Printers for damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of labor lost caused by power failure for 2½ hours, on or
about August 20, 1979.
h. Claim submitted by Roger L. Druliner for vehicular damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of being struck by City-owned golf cart while parked on Golf
Course parking lot, on or about October 8, 1979.
i. Claim submitted by Marianne C. Hays for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident between turnstiles and escalator
at Anaheim Stadium, on or about September 26, 1979.
j. Claim submitted by Belinda Mae Gibbons for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a result of accident when a City vehicle backed into her parked
car on or about October 26, 1979.
k. Claim submitted by Perry R. Johnson for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police at Anaheim City Park and
other locations, on or about September 14, 1979.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 173: Hughes Air Corporation, dba Hughes Airwest, Notice of Intent to suspend
nonstop and/or single-plane service in four markets pursuant to Section 401 (j)
(2) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended.
b. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 58481, Southern
California Edison Company, for authority to increase its base rates to recover
increased expenditures made towards the development, purchase and testing of
advanced energy conservation metering equipment.
c. 155: Planning Department, Building Division, Monthly report for October 1979.
d. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of August 23, September 6, September 20
and October 18, 1979. '
3. 108: APPLICATION - PRIVATE PATROL PERMIT: Application by Richard Nunez, for
Simpson Security Specialists Academy Protection, 1160 West Ball Road, to supply
security for nightclubs and hotels, was denied as recommended by the Chief of
Police.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution Nos. 79R-671
through 79R-674, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
79-1293
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-671: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE
EASEMENT. (79-11A; public hearing set December 11, 1979, 3:00 P.M.)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-672: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LINCOLN PLAZA
PARK, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-803-7103-80308; APPROVING THE
DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF: AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened November 29, 1979 at 2:00 P.M.)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-673: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: BROOKHURST PARK IRRIGATION
RENOVATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-807-7103-00003. (Gerald R.
Willits)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-674: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY
LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF ANAHEIM HILLS ROAD AND SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-794-6325-4100. (Steiny and Company)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-671 through 79R-674, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held October 22, 1979, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-14 AND VARIANCE NO. 3116: Submitted by Gulf Oil
Corporation, for a change in zone from ML to CL, to construct a commercial shop-
ping center on property located at 727 S. East Street, with waiver of minimum
number of required parking spaces.
Reclassification No. 79-80-14 and Variance No. 3116 were withdrawn by the petitioner
79-1294
~it7 H~l!*.Anahe.im~. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-15, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2027: Submitted
by Shirishbabu H. Patel and Pushpa N. Patel, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000
to CL, to permit expansion of an existing motel on property located at 2145 South
Harbor Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC79-206 and 207,
granted Reclassification No. 79-80-15 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2027 and
granted a negative declaration status. ,
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Condition No. 3, Page 2 of PC79-207 and asked
how many kitchen units were included.
Miss Santalahti stated that was a standard condition and to her knowledge the
only kitchen unit involved was the manager's unit which was in accordance with
the plans as submitted.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she believed they were going to have to change the
manner in which the standard condition was written, because in reading it, there
could be 100% kitchen units permitted.
Miss Santaiahti stated they never had a problem with the specific set up
involved, but only when they went beyond that and put in larger refrigerators
or stoves. However, they could make it a policy from now on not to include
the condition.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested either not include it or indicate not more than
25%. She also noted there was no reference to the traffic signal assessment fees
or the street lighting and wanted to know if that was merely an oversight.
Miss Santalahti stated that the street lighting had possibly been paid if it was
not included. Relative to the traffic signal assessment, they put that in basically
as a reminder since it was required when pulling a building permit.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1834: Submitted by Marriott Corporation
~6nd~i~n ~ il of Resolution No--~ ~C78-124 pertainin~ hl~-~ ..... , ~o amend
~ to ~vu~ ~ heights along
the south property line of C-R and RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on the
south side of Convention Way, west of Harbor Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission
requested amendment relating' pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-212 granted the
mental Impact Report No. 215 ~dC°ndlti°nal Use Permit No. 1834, ~nd Environ-
been previously approved.
4. CONDITIONAL ~ISE PERMIT NO. 1888:
Submitted by Donald M. Loynd, Laderbel,
Inc., to delete Condition No. 3 of Resolution No. PC78-215 relative to a require-
ment for a fire access easement on ML zoned property located at 1212 North
Magnolia Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-211, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1888, and a negative declaration status had been
previously approved.
79 -1295
City ~all.,. Anah_eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2028: Submitted by Alfred A. Holve and Sons
Inc., to permit on-sale alcoholic beverages and to expand an existing restaurant
on CL zoned property located at 1723 West Katella Avenue, with waivers of
maximum structural height and minimum side yard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-209, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2028, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that they were expanding a commercial use four feet
from RS-7200 and she wanted to know how that could have happened.
Miss Santalahti explained that she was not present at that particular Planning
Commission hearing. Although there were two requested waivers relative to
building height and side yard setback, it was her understanding that none of
the residential neighbors were concerned in this instance.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt they would be concerned after the expansion occurred, as
they had such experiences before, unless the portion adjacent to the real estate
office was not being used as residential.
Miss Santalahti stated that the neighbors were notified and the developer might
have spoken with them so that they had no actual concerns.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2030: Submitted by Richard B. and Nancy Z.
Winchester, to permit an office on ML zoned property located at 3801 East La
Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-210, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2030, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. VARIANCE NO. 3117 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10877): Submitted by Walter E. La
Force and Blanche Hanahan La Force, to establish a 15-lot, 14-unit subdivision
on proposed RM-3000 zoned property located at 3311 West Lincoln Avenue, with
waiver of required lot frontage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-208, granted
Variance No. 3117 and a negative declaration status had previously been approved.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted Page 4a, Item (6) of the October 22, 1979 staff report
which indicated the project would be a 14-unit condominium complex with 14.7 units
per acre. She asked the maximum units per acre they were now allowing.
Miss Santalahti stated a maximum was in that range or around 15, but she would
have to check for the specific figure. Under the 4,000-square foot per unit,
it was approximately 12. The change to 3,000 square feet represented an increase
of approximately 33%. It was consistent with the regulations.
Councilwoman Kaywood then noted that the 2,957-square foot unit was a waiver of
the 3,000-square foot unit. Whenever they reduced size, there were still requests
for smmller units, or squeexing more on less.
79-1296
Ci~y~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Nov-mher 13~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood also referred to Page 4b of the subject staff report, Para-..
graph 5 relating to drainage, which she felt was not necessary in the sense the
location involved was Lincoln and Western Avenues and not the canyon area to
which it applied.
8. VARIANCE NO. 1042 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by the City of
Anaheim, requesting to terminate Variance No. 1042, to permit a beauty college
and salon on CG zoned property located at 119 North Lemon Street, as a condition
of approval under Reclassification No. 78-79-37.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-216, terminated
Variance No. 1042.
9. VARIANCE NO. 1826 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 621 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION:
Submitted by the City of Anaheim, requesting to terminate Variance No. 1826, to
waive the location of a free-standing sign, and to terminate Conditional Use
Permit No. 621, to permit a service station at the intersection of a primary
highway and a local street within 75 feet of a residential structure, on CG
zoned property located at 401 West Lincoln Avenue, as a condition of approval
under Reclassification No. 78-79-44.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC70-217 and 213,
terminated Variance No. 1826 and Conditional Use Permit No. 621.
10. VARIANCE NO. 2531 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by the City of
Anaheim, requesting to terminate Variance No. 2531, to permit a commercial office
in a portion of an existing residence with various Code waivers on PD-C zoned
property located at 120, 122, and 122½ North Harbor Boulevard, as a conditon
of approval under Reclassification No. 78-79-44.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-215, terminated
Variance No. 2531.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1925 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by
the City of Anaheim, requesting to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 1925,
to permit an insurance office in a residential structure, on PD-C zoned property
located at 125 North Helena Street, as a condition of approval under Reclassifi-
cation No. 78-79-44.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-214, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1925.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1443 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC USE:
Submitted by Tri-Way Freeway Business Complex, Ltd., requesting approval of a
"chiropractic office" as a specific use under Conditional Use Permit No. 1443,
to establish a planned unified industrial service center including a restaurant
and catering facility, general business offices, and retail distribution firms,
with waiver of permitted uses and minimum number of required parking spaces, on
ML zoned property located at 2115 Crescent Avenue, Suite B.
Pursuant to the subject request, the City Planning Commission determined a
"chiropractic office" to be a specific use under Conditional Use Permit No. 1443.
79-1297
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4077: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4077 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4077: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-46(11), RS-5000, Tract
No. 10032)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4077 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4078: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4078 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4078: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-37, CL)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4078 duly passed and adopted.
156: ORDINANCE NO. 4080: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4080 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4080: AN ORDINANCE OF ~IE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW CHAPTER 7.10
TO TITLE 7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ADVERTISING, DISPLAY
AND SALE TO MINORS OF PARAPHERNALIA COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF NARCOTICS.
114: DEDICATION OF PACIFIC TELEPHONE FACILITY: Councilman Overholt reported
on his and Councilman Bay's attendance at the dedication of the Pacific Telephone
Company's new $8 million facility in the Northeast Industrial area on Friday,
November 9, 1979. That facility would absorb some of the Company's other offices
in the community.
102: COMPLAINTS - BARKING DOGS: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that she was
continuing to receive many desperate calls complaining about barking dogs and
something needed to be done. The person causing the problem was being given all
the consideration while the entire neighborhood suffered by not being able to
sleep or being driven to a heightened state of annoyance. She realized that
they contracted with the County on animal control, but the procedure as now
established placed the entire burden on the neighbors, rather than the responsible
party. Many situations were ongoing for weeks and months with the dogs barking
ali day and night. As of now, the complainant was required to pick up a complaint
form at the County and then 40 days was allowed in which to do something about the
problem. She, therefore, directed the City Manager and City Attorney to review
the matter relative to facilitating easier enforcement on barking dog complaints.
79-1298
City Hall' .A..na.hei~.., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he would check with the County. There was a barking
dog ordinance and the procedure being used was somewhat cumbersome. Judges occa-
sionally asked to debark dogs, as well as to take other action, when the situation
involved a matter of serious discomfort to neighbors.
Councilman Bay added that he had received the same type of complaints.
114: ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO PARAPHERNALIA: Councilman Roth commended the City
Attorney for his prompt action in facilitating the first reading of the ordinance
regarding display and sale to minors of paraphernalia (Ordinance No. 4080).
149: PARKING LOT - SENIOR CITIZENS COMPLEX: Councilman Roth stated that a
concerned citizen in the Chamber audience brought to his attention problems
relative to the parking lot at the new Senior Citizens' complex - (1) loitering
by unauthorized people and, (2) breaking into automobiles, stealing tape decks
and vandalizing cars. The Police had been called several times, and realizing
the priorities under which they labored, the time lag gave the suspects an
opportunity to leave the scene. The gentleman he spoke with suggested that
the Council consider installing signs indicating that the area was patrolled.
Councilman Roth thereupon requested staff to submit recommendations relative to
signing for the Senior Citiznes parking lot to discourage loitering, vandalism
and theft.
114: PERMISSION TO LEAVE THE STATE: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by
Councilman Seymour, Councilman Roth was granted permission to leave the state
for 90 days. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth noted he would only be absent for the Tuesday, November 20, 1979
meeting.
156: LETTER FROM JUDGE CARDENAS TO MAYOR SEYMOUR: Councilman Bay referred to
letter dated November 5, 1979 from Judge Cardenas to Mayor Seymour (on file in
the City Clerk's office), a copy of which was received by the Council. In
reading the letter, he was concerned over a statement that was made relative
to plea-bargaining, last paragraph, page one of the November 5, 1979 letter.
Councilman Bay requested within the next week that they receive information as
to policies involved in the plea-bargaining process.
Mayor Seymour stated that he had already discussed the matter with the City
Attorney, and he (Hopkins) was preparing his remarks relative to his preparation
of an appropriate response.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that the letter referred to sentencing and when
there was a trial for 647B of the Penal Code (prostitution), the Judge had full
control of the sentencing and the City's prosecutors did not rule or make
recommendations. He felt that Judge would have to agree that some judges were
more lenient than others.
Relative to the second part of Councilman Bay's question, it was true that
approximately 90% of the prostitutes arrested were sentenced by the plea-
bargaining process and the Judge approved of recommendations by the prosecutor,
and he had the final say so in the matter and not the prosecutors.
79-1299
City _H..a.ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 13~ 1979,..1:30 P.M.
150: ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: Councilman Bay referred to
a memorandum which discussed the call from Jackie Terrell at the Senior Citizens'
Center referring to the fact that the Community Development Council of Orange
County (CDC) who assisted in the Meals on Wheels Program with some of the equip-
ment, had now cut off that help.
The Mayor, Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Overholt stated that assistance
was now being provided by the Parks and Recreation Department.
Councilman Bay stated that aspect did not specifically concern him. His question
revolved around the fact that the County function of the CDC was contracted to
a degree, and he thought the City Council allocated funds to the CDC every year.
If that were true, and they cut services that they had been performing regard-
less on. what technicality, he felt it would be in order for
the Council to review what funds they were applying to the CDC for services
within the City. He requested information on how much funding was provided
to the CDC, for what purpose, and if the CDC had the prerogative to cut off such
services anytime they felt like doing so.
119: KICK-OFF DINNER - FIRST MARINE DIVISION ASSOCIATION: Mayor Seymour referred
to a late request received for a resolution recognizing the formation of the
First Marine Division Association, Anaheim Chapter. A kick-off dinner for the
newly formed association was being held at the Convention Center Hotel in Buena
Park at 7:30 p.m. on Saturday, November 17, 1979. Since they did not have time
to prepare the resolution, he was soliciting Council support of it, so that it
could be drawn accordingly.
By general consent, the Council gave their support for the subject resolution to
be drawn.
Mayor Seymour noted that the association wanted Councilwoman Kaywood to attend
the dinner, at which time the resolution would be presented; Councilwoman Kaywood
indicated that she would do so.
156: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING - RIVERDALE SCHOOL AREA: Mayor Seymour reported on
a recent meeting held at Riverdale School with citizens, Captain Kennedy and
the Community Pride Program of the Orange Unified School District. He noted
that was the area abutting the freeway where so much graffiti was in evidence
and also on the walls surrounding the development itself. They were also
experiencing numerous drug problems, party problems, etc. and matters were
out of hand in that neighborhood. He felt the meeting was a positive one and
at the meeting he explained to the citizens that he would approach the Council
to discuss the implementation or at least consider an anti-graffiti ordinance.
It was his understanding that the City of Buena Park, as well as Norwalk, had
very successful anti-graffiti ordinances even to the degree that in Norwalk,
the city somehow could to onto private property and paint the back of the
wall facing a public street. If the Council had no objections, he was asking
the City Attorney to review the Buena Park and Norwalk anti-graffiti ordinances
for possible implementation in Anaheim.
The Council was highly supportive of the request.
79-1300
City Hall, Anahei.m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Nov~,ber 13~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
156: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING - ANAHEIM BOULEVARD: The Mayor reported on his atten-
dance at another neighborhood meeting with residents in the 700 block of North
Anaheim Boulevard who were experiencing problems from the commercial area backing
up to their residential area involving a beer bar and a temporary personnel agency
where a number of undesirables were hanging around. In a couple of weeks, the
Council would be receiving a report as to what could be done to help that neigh-
borhood in their dilemma.
108: BUSINESS LICENSE SURVEY: Mayor Seymour stated they had received an
inquiry from a Mr. Haggerty of Fullerton who offered his services to Anaheim
relative to business licenses. In doing a survey, he suggested that he could
save the City large sums of money by identifying many businesses that did not
have licenses, but he was told that Anaheim was not interested. He (Seymour)
had been told that recently the City of Buena Park hired Mr. Haggerty and
allegedly the results of his work at $15 an hour was to identify 410 unlicensed
businesses resulting in substantial revenues to the City.
The Mayor thereupon requested the City Manager to obtain the report from Buena
Park relative to the alleged success of the program.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:27 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK